The designation employed
and the presentation of the material
throughout of this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the publishers
and the UNESCO Secretariat concerning
the legal status of any country or territory,
city or area or of its authorities,
the delimitations of its frontiers
or boundaries.
The authors are responsible for the choice
and the presentation of the facts contained
in this publication and for the opinions
expressed therein, which are not
necessarily those of UNESCO and do not
commit the organization.
Published in 2002
by the MAB Programme, UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
Mention of a trademark or a proprietary
product does not constitute a guarantee
or a warranty of the product
and does not imply approval to
the exclusion of other products that also
may be suitable.
75732 Paris Cedex 15, France
Tel.: 33 (0) 1 45 68 40 67
Fax: 33 (0) 1 45 68 58 04
No part of this publication may be
reproduced, in any form, without
permission from the publishers except
for the quotation of brief passages
for the purpose of review.
E-mail: [email protected]
www.unesco.org/mab
Printed by UNESCO
© UNESCO, June 2002
Suggested citation: Lass, W.;
Reusswig, F. (eds). 2002. Social
Monitoring: Meaning and Methods
for an Integrated Management in Biosphere
Reserves. Report of an International
Workshop. Rome, 2-3 September 2001.
Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring
(BRIM) Series No. 1. UNESCO, Paris.
Printed in France
ISBN 92-95028-00-7
Address of editors:
Wiebke Lass, Fritz Reusswig
GSF (Center for Socio-Economic Research)
Meistersingerstr. 15D,
14471 Potsdam, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected]
Direction:
Salvatore Arico
UNESCO editor:
Lucilla Spini
Editorial assistant:
Josette Gainche
Design and layout:
Ivette Fabbri
(SC-2002/WS/55)
Acknowledgments:
Cécile Mazzacurati
Acronyms
BRIM
Biosphere Reserve Integrated
Monitoring
CSD
Commission on Sustainable
Table of Contents
BRIM SERIES No. 1
I.
Introduction
4
II.
Context and meaning of social
monitoring
4
II.1
II.3
Functions of (social) monitoring
in biosphere reserves
The new context of nature conservation
and monitoring in biosphere reserves:
sustainable development
Dimensions of social monitoring
III.
Methods and indicators
III.1
Conceptual framework and guidelines
III 1.1 Monitoring needs
a conceptual framework
III.1.2 Guidelines for social monitoring
in biosphere reserves
III.1.3 Degree of standardization
of indicator sets
Indicators for social monitoring
The question of integrative methods
and tools:
20
IV.
Implementation
20
IV.1
Changing the framing:
biosphere reserves as ‘social organisms’
Potential barriers to adoption of social
monitoring in biosphere reserves
Participation
22
23
Concluding recommendations
and remarks
24
II-2
Development
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
IGBP
International GeosphereBiosphere Programme
IHDP
International Human
Dimensions Programme on
Global Environmental Change
HDI
Human Development Index
LTER
Long Term Ecological Research
MA
Millennium Assessment
MAB
Man and the Biosphere
Programme
III.2
III.3
IV.2
MOST
Management of Social
IV.3
Transformations Programme
NGO
Non-Governmental
Organization
NPP
Net Primary Productivity
UNCED
United Nations Conference
on Environment
and Development
V.
V.5
Enforce research activities
in the field of social monitoring
Initiate pilot projects
Links to other monitoring initiatives/
programmes and organizations
Communicate benefits of social
monitoring
Conclusion
VI.
References
V.1
V.2
V.3
V.4
Annex I: Contributions of experts (Abstracts)
Annex II: List of participants
4
6
9
10
10
10
14
16
17
21
24
25
25
27
28
28
29
33
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
3
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Introduction
Introduction
I.
Until recently social monitoring has been a
widely neglected issue in nature conservation and protection. In the case of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme this is highlighted by the fact
that from the total of 411 biosphere reserves in 94 countries that constitute the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves (as of September 2001) only about forty report
about socio-economic monitoring activities. The majority of monitoring activities in biosphere reserves is dedicated to natural (science) issues (biotic, abiotic). This
is a clear deficit from the background that biosphere
reserves have to be regarded as theatres and laboratories for sustainable development, thus fostering an integrated view on society and nature and their interactions. This view is underlined by the ‘Seville Strategy’
adopted by UNESCO MAB in 1995. In accordance with
this goal, and in line with the growing necessity to better anchor conservation goals in the minds, hearts, and
actions of society members, the MAB Biosphere Reserve
Integrated Monitoring (BRIM) programme dedicated a
Special Meeting on Integrated Monitoring (FAO, Rome,
4-6 September). In addition the German MAB National
Committee convened a workshop on ‘Social Monitoring
of Biosphere Reserves’ (FAO, Rome, 2-3 September). This
workshop was prepared by the Institute for Socio-Economic Research (Gesellschaft für sozio-ökonomische
Forschung, GSF, Potsdam, Germany) in close co-operation with the MAB Secretariat in Paris. It focused on
three issues:
◗ What is the context and the meaning of social
monitoring in biosphere reserves?
◗ What methodologies and what indicators
can/should be used in social monitoring?
◗ How can social monitoring be implemented in
biosphere reserves and in the wider MAB/BRIM
context?
Context
and
meaning
...
The following report is structured along these
lines of the workshop. Within each chapter the results
are presented along main thematic points.
The expert panel consisted of eleven specialists
from the social sciences1 (or from integrated scientific
approaches) and was selected because of the originality
and/or the authenticity of their work in the context of
monitoring (Annex II gives the list of participants). The
expert panel was asked to give their presentations, followed by an extensive round table discussion. In addi1.
Some participants found the dashboard methodology as
being open to manipulation. Others highlighted that this
was the normal case for any indicator system, and that the
dashboard offers the advantage of an open and visible
‘manipulation’ process—which would be nothing else than
transparent methodology.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
4
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
tion, the expert panel had to answer a short questionnaire that followed the lines of the whole workshop.
A first overview of the workshop results was worked out
by Lass/Reusswig (GSF) and Mrs. Kruse-Graumann, the
latter presenting it at the subsequent BRIM meeting (46 September). The experts re-edited their papers in the
light of the workshop. The abstracts of their paper presentations are given in Annex II.
This report is based upon the workshop results,
the contributions of the experts, and further literature
review. Names in brackets after a statement refer to
either an expert paper or a contribution during discussions. We would like to thank the FAO, the GTOS office
in Rome, and the MAB Secretariat for its support and
collaboration.
II.
Context and meaning
of social monitoring
Functions of (social) monitoring
in biosphere reserves
Monitoring refers to information or data sampling which is repeated in certain intervals of time and
serves certain scientific and/or management purposes.
It differs from pure observation or from surveys due to
its repeated and replicable character that enables comparison over time and the evaluation against a target.
Monitoring allows for assessing changes, where a baseline is available, or to establish the latter. Monitoring is
not an end in itself but should be undertaken to accomplish specific goals. It can provide scientists with socioeconomic, biological or environmental data. It can also
identify trends and discriminate between natural,
anthropogenic, and climatic changes. The results can be
used at local, regional and global scales and assist managers or other decision-makers in implementing sustainable use and conservation (cf. Figure 1).
Integrated Assessment is the evaluation of an
observed system against the background of an explicitly stated management problem or objective, not necessarily over time. The workshop participants discussed the question to what extent integrated
monitoring of biosphere reserves—and thus social monitoring as a part of it—could be characterized by monitoring and integrated assessment alike. Especially
Petschel-Held and Prescott-Allen made the point that as
biosphere reserves have already adopted, thanks to the
‘Seville Strategy, sustainable development as their guiding vision, and as they constitute special jurisdictional
areas under the management of an authority, their monitoring would automatically serve the needs and requirements of management objectives. Thus, in the case of
biosphere reserves, monitoring includes the elements of
evaluation and check against management goals, and
combines them with the basic feature of monitoring, i.e.
repeated observation. As the management goals of biosII.1
BRIM SERIES No. 1
phere reserves should—in accordance both with the
sustainability framework and the ‘Seville Strategy’—be
formulated and implemented by participatory processes,
communication is a crucial issue in monitoring of biosphere reserves.
According to a very broad definition socioeconomic monitoring aims at “the production
and provision of socially relevant information
Ob s e r v a t i o n
including their presentation” (Habich/Noll
1994). The term ‘social’ in social monitoring refers to economic, political, culNatural sphere
tural and socio-psychological aspects
◗ Organisms/species
of human actors and systems. Distinct
◗ Systems
from biological or other environ◗ Processes
mental monitoring, social monitoring explicitly includes a reflexive and
a value-oriented component. In contrast to simple observation, monitorSocial sphere
ing refers to a long-term, more or less
◗ Actors
systematic form of observation of
◗ Interactions
social states and processes, includes
◗ Systems/structures
quantitative and qualitative information
◗ Developments
(not or not only data), and is embedded
in a framework of analysis, evaluation, communication, and action.
Social monitoring of biosphere reserves is
specifically adapted to the necessities and processes that
are relevant in these very special social (including jurisdictional) settings. Monitoring as such is an integral
part of the biospheres mission in fulfilling their logistics function, providing support for research, monitoring, education and information exchange. Social monitoring is necessary in order to assess the main trends
and driving forces of human-nature interactions, and in
◗
order to assess the state of affairs in biosphere reserves
with regard to their contribution to sustainable devel◗
opment (cf. Box 1).
An important issue raised by some participants
◗
of the workshop was the question of who would be the
target audience or the users of (social) monitoring. The
◗
following list emerged from the discussion:
◗ Biosphere reserve managers and staff;
◗
◗ Biosphere reserve inhabitants;
◗ Politicians from community
◗
and regional levels;
◗ Politicians from national and global levels;
◗ Biosphere reserve visitors;
◗
◗ Local or national business;
◗ Local or national education agents;
◗ Tourism managers;
◗ Media representatives;
◗ Social (and other) scientists;
◗ General public.
Figure 1:
From observation to monitoring
Mo n i t o r i n g
Goals
and
targets
Data
Sustainable
management
Indicators
Instruments
and
measures
Box 1:
Tasks and functions of (social) monitoring
Description of States and Changes in Nature and
Society and their interactions.
Early Warning: Timely diagnosis of potential
damages, critical developments etc.
Prospection of possible future developments (weak
prognosis, scenarios, simulations).
Evaluation: Continuous control of targets, visions
and management objectives.
Decision Support: Providing decision makers at
different levels with relevant information.
Information and Communication: Providing
stakeholders and the general public with relevant
information and support communication processes.
Science: Providing data and time series for hypothesis
testing, model validation and to reveal knowledge
gaps.
A monitoring system for biosphere reserves
should serve multiple purposes of different kinds
of users, leading to quite different levels of resolution,
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
5
BRIM SERIES No. 1
scientific background, degrees of complexity etc. As no
single reporting format for monitoring results seems
appropriate to serve all those purposes and users at the
same time, it could be useful either to operate with different forms of reporting or to specify results in different user contexts.
With regard to the political context of monitoring the workshop suggested to carefully watch the
specific interests and conditions of understanding that
politicians are subject to. From a more systemic perspective it is important to notice that policy is not only
a stream of management and decision in collective
affairs in time, it can also be seen as following a specific cycle of policy preparation, formulation, execution, and evaluation, from where a new cycle begins
(cf. Figure 2). The role of monitoring (and indicators
included in monitoring) is especially important in the
phases that precede and follow the evaluation phase.
Monitoring thus helps answering two sorts of questions:
(1) How do certain policies have performed? And (2):
What should be new or adjusted policy goals?
As the evaluation of policies is itself subject to
political debate—especially in democracies—the results
of monitoring programs will be part of that debate.
“… monitoring has a policy orientation.
While it is scientific, monitoring
is not science.”
(Rodenburg 1995: 79)
So the old rule of prudence scientists followed
since the days of the British Royal Academy ‘not to
meddle with politicks’ does not totally hold true any
more in the case of monitoring. With regard to the monitoring of biosphere reserves it should be kept in mind
that the issue of assessing and interpreting the results
of monitoring processes will become a ‘normal’ experience both with respect to management and to regional
development. The concept of sustainable development
can serve as a framework for that debate.
The more (social) monitoring in biosphere
reserves shifts from classical monitoring, the more a
conceptual framework and a methodology are needed.
So much the more as the results of monitoring activities in biosphere reserves should serve not only managerial but scientific purposes, too. It was stressed by
the experts of the Rome workshop that BRIM should
try to seek the cooperation with other (global) monitoring programs and with the (global) environmental
change research in general. In order to realize the first
issue it is crucial to deliver a data or result stream that
can be used by other initiatives with different targets.
In order to realize the second one data from biosphere
reserves should be transparent, valid and open for
hypothesis testing from different disciplines and initiatives.
The new context
of nature conservation and monitoring
in biosphere reserves:
sustainable development
The concept of sustainable development has
altered the context both of conservation and of social
monitoring substantially by calling the attention to the
fact that human actors and systems both find their living
conditions and their limiting factors in the natural environment—the systemic interplay of biotic and abiotic
elements that support and enable their lives and functioning. It reminds us of the factual bonds that link us
with the natural world, and of the metabolic linkages
between human and natural systems. It came on the
global agenda just because of the fact that humans were
for the first time in their history able to influence the
Earth system significantly, even able to degrade and
destroy whole ecosystems and to extinct other species.
Propagated by the so-called Brundtland-Report
in 1987 and the UNCED in Rio de Janeiro (1992), the
concept of sustainable development tries to integrate the
two big streams of politics and discourse—environmental protection and conservation on the one hand,
II.2
Policy
preparation
Monitoring
Figure 2
The role of monitoring in the policy cycle
Policy
formulation
Policy
evaluation
Monitoring
Policy
execution
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
6
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
BRIM SERIES No. 1
human development on the other—that had been separated in peoples minds for so long before. On the basis
of the sustainability concept we now are obliged to recognize that:
◗ The dependency of the social system from the
natural system surrounding it as a fundamental precondition is the key point social actors
at all levels and in all parts of the world have
to learn;
◗ The moderate anthropocentrism of the sustainability concept answers the empirical fact
that no ‘virgin’, uninfluenced nature exists any
more and that we have to identify those influences and to decide what part and/or state of
nature we want to protect.
The concept of sustainability is useful in our
context for several reasons:
◗ It entails a strong need for inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation that is indispensable for
a social science based understanding of the
biosphere;
◗ It links biological, ecological and environmental questions in general to the sphere of social
actors and systems, their reproductive and symbolic needs and perspectives;
◗ It links actual and future events and problems
(inter-generational equity), focusing the attention of humans to the tomorrow’s consequences
of today’s actions—thus widening our otherwise often myopic time horizons;
◗ It strengthens our sense of global problems, of
the great discrepancies between the rich and the
poor countries, and of the different development concepts and needs arising from them
(intra-generational equity);
◗ It re-vitalizes the debate about environmental
goals and the targets that we want to reach with
regard to a nature more and more under human
influence;
◗ It gives a rough idea of what aspects of biosphere reserves should be monitored by linking
environmental issues with economic and social
ones and by qualifying their inter-linkages.
Biosphere reserves are not only nature conservation sites, they are as well places where humans live,
work, recreate, do research, protect a desired state of
nature. Human actors and systems have been neglected
for a long time in ecological research mostly founding
nature protection policies. This negligence has to be
overcome. “Biosphere Reserves for People” could be a
Leitbild for a re-integration of the traditionally widely
separated issues of nature conservation and natural
resource use (Kruse). Protected areas will survive only
if they are seen to be of value, in the widest sense, to
the nation as a whole and to local people in particular.
Sustainability is linking environmental and
nature protection goals to social and economic processes
and goals (overcoming poverty, sustainable economic
development/growth, participation—to name just a
few). Sustainable development offers a framework both
for nature conservation and social monitoring of conservation issues if it is regarded as an open and flexible
concept that somehow is still ‘in motion’. We should not
regard it as a blueprint for human development in a
strict sense, but rather as a ‘regulatory idea’ (Kant), creating a relatively open space for public debate, goal
seeking and mutual learning on all social levels
(Lass/Reusswig 1999). As some of the required (social)
changes for a more sustainable society are to be
observed today—even if they may be small in impact
or not very clear in their final outcome—some scholars
refer to the term ‘Sustainability Transition’ to indicate
both openness and actual changes underway (NRC
1999, Clark 2001).
Sustainable development offers great challenges
not only for societies, but for science too. Due to the
great cultural divide between natural and social sciences
and due to the traditional tendency for specialization,
the integrated view on human-nature interactions is as
rare and underdeveloped as it is necessary both for an
enhanced understanding and improved management.
The key features of a ‘Sustainability Science’, as they
have been formulated by leading global change scientists from natural and social sciences (Kates et al. 2001,
Schellnhuber 2001, Schellnhuber/Wenzel 1998) include:
◗ Inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation
between the sciences in order to find out substantial results with regard to human-nature
interactions;
◗ Orientation towards problems of non-sustainable development and critical trends and patterns of those interactions;
◗ Bridging the gap between local and regional
questions and approaches on the one hand, and
global concerns and models on the other.
◗ Using both quantitative and qualitative research
methods;
◗ Joint research activities across countries and
institutions;
◗ Orientation towards strategic solutions of these
problems instead of purely contemplative interests;
◗ Cooperation and dialogue between science and
social stakeholders in order to foster sustainable
decisions and solutions.
There are some good examples of the emergence of a ‘sustainability science’, especially in the context of global research programs like IGBP or IHDP. It
would be misleading to use the traditional dichotomy
of ‘pure’ versus ‘applied’ science in order to subsume the
emergence of that ‘sustainability science’ under the lat-
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
7
BRIM SERIES No. 1
ter. There are good arguments in the philosophy and
sociology of science that declare this dichotomy as overcome by the current situation characterized by high
uncertainties of our systems knowledge and urgent decision needs at the same time (Funtowicz/Ravetz 1993,
Nowotny et al. 2001). Social monitoring and related
research activities in biosphere reserves could contribute
to the emergence of a sustainability science—and profit
from it at the same time.
The need for a new knowledge base in the context of sustainable development holds true for the social
sciences as well. The outlines of such a knowledge base
have been sketched by a UNESCO MOST workshop in
1996 (cf. Becker et al. 1997). Three domains of sustainability knowledge can be distinguished:
◗ System knowledge. Where are we now, what
(social causes, drivers, mechanisms …) make
the current situation and its evolutionary
dynamic non-sustainable? This is the analytical
component of the sustainability science, and
any social monitoring activity should encompass it, e.g. by looking at human pressures on
land, resources and species in a biosphere
reserve.
◗ Goal knowledge. Where do we want to go,
what goals and targets does sustainable development mean in some detail? This body of sustainability knowledge includes visions of a sustainable society in its relations to nature and
clearly has a normative component. Social monitoring should relate its indicators to goal functions and—for example—indicate as clear as
possible what desired (and attainable) state a
concrete biosphere reserve should reach in the
future. Monitoring implies goals, goals imply
values, values imply human choice.
◗ Transformation knowledge. How do we get to
the goals and visions, what instruments and
means have to be used, and who should do so
in what time? This relates to the strategic component of sustainability knowledge, and again
social monitoring of biosphere reserves should
include information about the action space and
possible coalition or networks of actors who
are about to make the sustainability transition
becoming real.
The output of a monitoring programme in biosphere reserves can contribute to all three types of sustainability knowledge: It will enhance substantially our
understanding of biological systems in their interaction
with human systems (systems knowledge). It will concretize both our notion of what sustainable development
might look like (goal knowledge) and by what measures
on a management or experimental level it might be
achieved (transformation knowledge).
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
8
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
Some scholars have expressed very skeptical
thoughts with regard to the ‘postmodern’ idea of linking conservation to participatory or community-based
approaches—as they are expressed by many social scientists and worldwide operating donor or conservation
agencies under the umbrella of the sustainability discourse. Some argue that this shift from ‘protectionism’
to ‘participation’ would lead into ‘largely a conservation
cul-de-sac’ (Attwell/Cotterill 2000: 571). Indeed, if ‘participation’ or ‘community-based natural resource management’ only meant to let conservation goals erode by
profit-seeking stakeholder groups and/or inefficient (or
unwilling) governments, then those concepts would
have to be abandoned in order to save the conservation
goal. One has to be well aware of the fact that even
indigenous knowledge, often regarded as being in full
equilibrium with its environment and well adapted to
natural conditions, has sometimes in history lead to
resource overuse and habitat degradation (Bodley 2002,
Headland 1997), and that it might be under the same
pressure to adapt to global change as ‘modern’ knowledge seems to be (Petschel-Held). But the experts of the
Rome workshop highlighted another point: participatory approaches to conservation in the context of sustainable development aim at a better support for conservation goals, at more motivation by local people due
to a strengthened sense of responsibility, and in general
at more awareness of the natural conditions and limitations of human life (Handawela, Stoll-Kleemann). Due
to land tenure and land use rights structures in some
cases—as e.g. in Papua New Guinea (van Helden in
this report, van Helden 2001)—participation of local
(indigenous and other) people is a sine qua non for conservation. As a consequence social monitoring programmes should focus upon possible conflicts between
sustainable use and nature conservation issues (e.g. due
to population growth, lifestyle changes, tourism, raising poverty, raising opportunity costs for conservation)
in order to serve as early warning systems both for sustainability and conservation.
The Seville Strategy, adopted by MAB in 1995,
explicitly links biosphere reserves and the sustainability concept—not only with regard to the transition zone,
but to all zones within a reserve. It states:
“…Biosphere reserves are thus poised to take
on an new role. Not only will they be a means
for the people who live and work within
and around them to attain a balanced
relationship with the natural world; they will
also contribute to the needs of society as a
whole by showing the way to a more
sustainable future. This is the heart
of the vision for biosphere reserves
in the 21st century.”
BRIM SERIES No. 1
The experts of the social monitoring workshop
unanimously underlined the validity of the Seville Strategy for social and integrated monitoring in biosphere
reserves. Indeed, if sustainable development is accepted
as a goal for the future development of biosphere
reserves, the question arises immediately whether or
not this goal (or combination of sub-goals) has been
reached or not. And answering the question implies
integrated monitoring with a strong socio-economic
component.
The Seville Strategy sees biosphere reserves as
models of land management and of approaches to sustainable development. As the experts stated in our workshop, this has not yet been achieved, although some
good practice is under way. Future work (e.g., of BRIM)
with regard to integrated monitoring should orient itself
towards the Seville Strategy, taking it as a vision and a
guideline for the monitoring process (cf. esp. Kruse,
Lee). The recommendations of the ‘Seville +5’ International Meeting of Experts (in Pamplona, Spain, 23-27
October 2000, cf. MAB Report Series No. 69), asking
inter alia for “clearly-stated sustainable land management objectives (in accordance with the biosphere
reserve zonation)” that should “include socio-economic
dimensions”, were supported.
As sustainable development does of course not
exclusively relate to biosphere reserves, its adoption as
an orienting framework opens a further context: the
regional and functional links between biosphere reserves
and the ‘outer world’ (Moldan, van Helden). If biosphere
reserves were about to constitute models for the whole
society in terms of conservation and sustainable use of
nature’s goods and services, it seems inevitable to stress
especially the functions of the transition and the development zones and the principal possibility to sustain the
life even of modern societies, and to highlight the value
of conserved nature in a wider sense. Otherwise the
model is no model at all. A German study—undertaken
in the context of explaining the meaning of sustainable
development for Germany—stresses that up to now
biosphere reserves cannot serve as models in the sense
of the Seville Strategy (Fischer 2000). Biosphere reserves
are, according to Fischer, mostly located in marginal
regions with low productive potential, depending on
financial transfers from and on economic activities of
the outside, mostly non-sustainable world. Transforming them into model regions would thus imply to:
◗ focus on more central regions (e.g. close
to urban and/or industrialized areas), or
establish new biosphere reserves in the core;
◗ focus on more productive areas or foster
production and value-added in reserves;
◗ become independent of financial transfers
from the outside world.
Social monitoring is not just an add-on operation to existing monitoring programs, widely concerned
with natural (abiotic, biotic) entities and processes. It
has to be regarded as an integral part of an emerging
new whole, commonly defined by natural and social sciences. Social monitoring thus has to be part of integrated monitoring for sustainable development of and
in biosphere reserves. Neither purely social nor purely
ecological monitoring activities can make claims to be
paradigmatic or self-evidently relevant for integrated
monitoring in the context of sustainable development.
It will be important to make both natural scientists and nature conservation officials (e.g. in BRIM)
aware of the fact that integrated monitoring from the
background of sustainability and the Seville Strategy
means more than just adding some social science based
‘extras’ to existing monitoring programmes. If sustainability defines the framework and background of integrated monitoring activities, then purely environmental monitoring activities (biotic and abiotic) cannot
claim to represent themselves what monitoring in general should mean in biosphere reserves. The same holds
true for pure social monitoring. Instead, both directions
of research should become part of an emerging integrated endeavor in which their relevance and meaning
has to be discovered from the background of a better
understanding of human-nature interactions and their
critical dynamics. It is only with a culture of mutual
respect and learning that integrated monitoring will
come about (Lee, Kruse, Petschel-Held).
Dimensions of social monitoring
It is crucial to identify the very dimensions,
entities and processes to be monitored. At the core of
social monitoring activities are the social aspects of
human-nature interactions. Only to the degree that
social issues and processes contribute to this focal point
should they be included in a monitoring programme.
Purely social issues that are highly relevant for other
purposes (such as criminality rates, stock market
returns, number of computers per capita etc.) might
not be relevant to monitoring in biosphere reserves
unless their functional relation to the reserve is clear. It
is thus not sufficient to import existing social monitoring programmes that were designed for other purposes
(e.g. social indicators). They might be helpful, but only
after having clarified the relevant dimensions and
processes for biosphere reserves.
These dimensions are derived from background
assumptions about important relations between humans
and their environment compared to a given objective (be
they part of the overarching concept of sustainable
development, be they part of a specific management or
quality goal of a biosphere reserve). The workshop dedicated some attention to the question: which dimensions
of actors and systems should be taken into account and
II.3
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
9
BRIM SERIES No. 1
observed for social and finally integrated monitoring
processes. It came up with a provisional list (cf. Box 2).
These domains of human-nature interactions
in biosphere reserves should be subject of social monitoring and will thus be the basis for indicators. It is
important to see biosphere reserves embedded in their
environments—not only in ecological, but in social
terms as well. So the interactions between biosphere
reserves and the ‘outer world’ should be subject to monitoring as well.
sequences in terms of politics and/or management.
There was a consensus among the experts that monitoring makes sense only in a more theoretical and
research loaded cognitive environment. It is not sufficient to come up with a set of indicators without (i) a
goal orientation, (ii) a theoretically guided idea of the
system observed.
It is a well-known fact that especially social sciences do not dispose of a body of well-defined and
unanimously accepted methods, only waiting for purpose specific use. Instead, social sciences offer to an
external viewer quite often the impression of a battlefield of insoluble disputes among different paradigms
and traditions. There is some truth in that observation,
although one should not underestimate the domain of
determinable debate, of empirical scrutiny, of mathematical evidence, of model evaluation and the like even
in social sciences. But natural scientists should not be
too supercilious here when looking at their seemingly
less-scientific colleagues. This is a wise attitude especially for conservation biologists and ecologists. Of
course their basic concepts (as ‘climax vegetation’,
‘ecosystem’ or ‘equilibrium’) have evolved in paradigmand school-based debates as well (Worster 1994). Even
today those debates have not come to an end, as the
debate around the so-called ‘ecosystem approach’ may
show (Boyle et al. 2001). Scientist from all disciplines
should always be aware of possible mystifications of
their sciences, i.e. of the reification of concepts and
their confusion with observation and data (Lee). This
attitude should be an integral part of the scientific culture of mutual respect and understanding that should
frame the whole endeavor of integrated monitoring.
This holds true for the mystifications on the part of
social sciences as well. According to Lee the social sciences concepts that deserve de-mystification are ‘the
economy’ or ‘community’. By de-mystification it is not
understood to completely abandon a concept but to
make transparent its exact meaning, the empirical or
theoretical evidences that support it, and the restrictions
and limitations of its use.
A conceptual framework is less than a theory
but more than a vague notion of what to be monitored.
It is a ‘mental map’ of the biosphere reserve as an object
of structured and repeated observation. It should
include at least a rough idea of the relevant elements of
the system observed and of the main interactions
between those elements and their dynamic behavior
over time. It should explicitly include the main proximate drivers for human resource use (or even overuse)
as well as the primary drivers underlying them. Furthermore it should be open to future options and to sustainable pathways. External influences (such as species
invasion or climate change) should be taken into
account as well.
A key bridging element between humans and
the biotic and a-biotic environment in biosphere
Methods and Indicators
III.
Methods and indicators
III.1
Conceptual framework and guidelines
III.1.1 Monitoring needs
a conceptual framework
Although much literature on monitoring is
about indicators, monitoring is not just about indicators. A lot of the debates of the Rome workshop focused
on the question of the suitable methodological band
context of monitoring. This is not just because people
from academia simply would like to talk about the pro’s
and con’s of scientific methods. It is because indicators
otherwise are meaningless, measure the wrong thing—
or the wrong way—and they will have little to no con-
Box 2
Key dimensions for social monitoring
in biosphere reserves
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
Basic socio-demographic characteristics of
the human population that lives in (or close to)
a biosphere reserve.
Forms and degrees of the use of ecosystem goods
and services by residents and visitors. Forms of land
use and land tenure should be included here.
The socio-economic dynamism of individuals and
the private sector with regard to the biosphere reserve
as a ‘resource’ in a wider sense.
The management of a biosphere reserve and
problems of governance related to it.
The values and attitudes people have towards a
biosphere reserve and to nature conservation in
general.
Information, education and research belong to
the key elements of biosphere reserves’ mission.
This should include different forms of local
(e.g. indigenous) ecological knowledge.
The future of biosphere reserves as seen through
the eyes of experts and inhabitants is an important
trend and monitoring issue.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
10
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
BRIM SERIES No. 1
reserves are the goods and services that ecosystems provide (Daily 1997, Heydemann 1997). Taking a clear
anthropocentric perspective, the ‘goods and services’approach nevertheless leaves room for the conservation
goal. Ecosystem services are the conditions and
processes supported by biodiversity through which
ecosystems sustain and fulfill human life, including the
provision of goods. It is acknowledged that there is an
intrinsic value of ecosystems and biodiversity that necessitates conservation. This intrinsic value is explicable
not only in biological terms (e.g. species richness,
ecosystem functions), but also in social and cultural
ones (e.g. due to ethical or aesthetical preferences of
people). As Petschel-Held in his presentation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—where ecosystems
goods and services play a core role—showed, three basic
dimensions could be distinguished in the concept.
Ecosystem services are:
◗ supporting human life by biodiversity and by
ecosystem processes (such as cleaning of water,
growth of biomass or regulation of species composition);
◗ provisioning human actors and systems with
(tangible) products (such as food, fiber, fuel,
water, other biological resources);
◗
enriching human life by their pure existence
(such as cultural and aesthetic values).
Petschel-Held explained how the Millennium
Assessment included the services ecosystems provide
into a wider conceptual framework (cf. Figure 3).
Adopting such an approach for social monitoring in
biosphere reserves would consequently mean to observe
the way in which people use the ecosystem in biosphere
reserves, how they depend upon ecosystem processes,
how they influence them in turn, and if and how they
regard biosphere reserves being an enrichment of their
personal lives.
It is important to decide in what way the biotic
and abiotic processes of a biosphere reserve shall be
assessed in order to become relevant and observable
ecosystem services. One way would be to measure them
in ‘natural’ (biological, physical, other) terms, such as
measuring biomass production in terms of Net Primary
Productivity (NPP) or the contribution of forests to climate protection in tons of sequestered carbon. Another
way would be to attribute economic (monetary) value
to these services. There is a rich body of literature dedicated to the issue of valuating natures’ services
(Costanza et al. 1997, Daily 1997, van Kooten/Bulte
2000) and a quite broad array of estimates of what
ecosystems produce or support in monetary terms.
Figure 3
Conceptual framework of the Millennium Assessment
Scale 3
Scale 2
Scale 1
Primary drivers:
◗ Demographic change;
◗ Economic change (incl. globalization,
trade, market, and policy framework);
◗ Social and political change
(incl. governance, institutional,
and legal framework);
◗ Technological change;
◗ Lifestyle and behavioral change.
Demand
Well-being
and poverty reduction:
◗ Health and disease;
◗ Environmental security;
◗ Cultural security;
◗ Economic security;
◗ Equity.
Proximate drivers:
◗ Climate change;
◗ Land use and cover change;
◗ Factor inputs
(e.g. irrigation, fertilizers);
◗ Pollution;
◗ Harvest;
◗ Nutrient release;
◗ Species introductions.
Ecosystems
and their services:
◗ Supporting (biodiversity
and ecosystem processes):
◗ Provisioning (food, water, fiber,
fuel, other biological products);
◗ Enriching (cultural,
aesthetic).
= Strategies and interventions
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
11
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Figure 4 gives an overview over the different kinds of
values that can be attributed to ecosystem services.
For purposes of an integrated monitoring it will
be crucial to link both the ecosystem services and their
values and to integrate them spatially, i.e. on the level
of landscapes. Maybe the idea of ‘multi-functional landscapes’ (Brandt/Vejre 2001) could be helpful here.
For purposes of social monitoring in a wider
sense it is not sufficient to assess and observe the economic value (in a narrow sense). As the workshop participants pointed out, the ‘use’ of ecosystems or species
for people affiliated with them is manifold, including
aesthetic, spiritual and other uses. Kellert (1996) gives
an overview over what he holds to be the universal set
of values of nature and wildlife for all people, expressed
differently across cultures.
It is not that important if those values are or
are not universally valid for all humankind. It is more
important that they cover the whole range of human
valuing and appreciation of nature and wildlife—including values like domination or fear. By correlating these
values to their functions for individuals and groups, a
clear link is established between the biophysical world
and its social meaning. As social monitoring is about to
observe meaningful things/processes in the biophysical
world, the values of Kellert offer a good heuristics for
the development of an indicator system for biosphere
reserves.
The issue of valuating nature is crucial to biosphere reserves and social (including economic) monitoring for several reasons. First, biosphere reserves could
serve as test-grounds for different estimates and methods. Second, society and policy makers have to be
informed about the value of biosphere reserves. Wilkie,
Carpenter and Zhang (2001) argue, regarding parks and
reserves in the Congo Basin, that the joint amount of
maintenance costs and opportunity costs exceed the
revenues from tourism.
“Kenya could generate gross annual revenues
of $ 565 million and net returns
of $ 203 million while employing 4.2 million
Kenyans if all protected areas were converted
to agriculture. This compares to net revenues
of only $ 42 million per year from tourism.”
(Wilkie/Carpenter/Zhang 2000: 700)
From those observations, the authors claim that
developed countries in the industrialized world, being
especially interested in the conservation in the South,
should in fact transfer money to the South in order to
maintain reserves and, with them, biodiversity. Obviously, this calculation takes only direct use values
(tourism revenues) into account. If the scope is broadened and other types of values are taken into account
too, one might come up with very different assessments
of nature reserves. For the Changbaishan Mountain
Biosphere Reserve in Northeast China for example, Xue
and Tisdell (2001) come up with the figure of about
62 million US$ per year for all ecosystem services (such
as water conservancy, climate protection, nutrient
cycling etc.), ten times higher than the opportunity
costs for regular timber production.
For the evaluation and the communication of
issues concerning biosphere reserves to policymakers
and to the wider public, it is more important to take the
indirect, non-monetary benefits of reserves into
account—besides the direct monetary benefits—and to
check them against the costs (direct and opportunity
costs). This issue was discussed from the workshop in
the context of indicators.
Figure 4
Different types of values for nature
(source: WBGU 1999)
Total economic value
Use values
Non-use values
Direct use values
Indirect use values
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗ Food control
◗ Future uses
◗ Ground-water
◗ Future information
recharge
◗ Natural disaster prevention
◗ Climate stabilization
Food
Biomass
Wildlife
Recreation
Health
Option values
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
12
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
Existence values
Bequest values
◗ Beauty of landscapes
◗ Spiritual meaning
◗ Community values
◗ Sustainability
◗ Integrity
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Table 1
Universal human values of nature and wildlife
(according to Kellert 1996)
Value
Definition
Function
Utilitarian
Practical and material exploitation
of nature’s goods and services.
Physical sustenance, security,
well-being.
Naturalistic
Direct experience and exploration
of nature.
Curiosity, discovery, recreation.
Ecologisticscientific
Systematic study of structure, function,
and relationship in nature.
Knowledge, understanding,
observational skills.
Aesthetic
Experiencing the physical appeal
and beauty of nature.
Inspiration, harmony, security,
sublimity.
Symbolic
Use of nature for language
and thought.
Communication, mental
development and richness.
Humanistic
Strong emotional attachment
and “love”.
Bonding, sharing, cooperation,
companionship.
Moralistic
Spiritual reverence and ethical concern
for nature.
Order, meaning, kinship,
altruism.
Dominionistic
Mastery, physical control, dominance
of nature.
Mechanical skills, physical prowess,
ability to subdue.
Negativistic
Fear, aversion, alienation from nature.
Security, protection, safety, awe.
One might summarize that point in saying:
1. A conceptual framework for social (and integrated) monitoring is necessary; it is worthwhile to invest some energy, time and money
to develop such a framework with regard to the
specific reality of biosphere reserves;
2. This framework should be trans-disciplinary
from the outset. Basic standards of disciplinary
science should be met, but focusing upon
human-nature interactions and the well-being
of people in their environment clearly needs
innovative and integrative concepts;
3. There are some good ideas and building elements for such a framework available, such as
the ecosystem goods and services approach
adopted by the MA, the total economic value
or the universal human value approach. They
should be checked more systematically and
integrated into a suitable framework with
regard to the sustainable development of biosphere reserves;
4. No single approach seems appropriate to fulfill
the needs of (social) monitoring in biosphere
reserves. Instead, a culture of mutual respect
and a (self-) critical attitude, not allowing for
paradigmatic domination and mystification of
basic concepts is needed;
5. It is necessary to establish a search process for
an integrative framework for both natural and
social monitoring that is open and flexible
enough to adopt new theoretical and empirical
evidence. Guiding principle should be the
search for major human-nature interactions in
biosphere reserves and the hypotheses that
social and natural sciences have with regard to
them.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
13
BRIM SERIES No. 1
III.1.2 Guidelines
for social monitoring in biosphere reserves
Besides a conceptual framework, some more
operational principles are needed in order to ensure the
steadiness and the quality of results as well as their use
in terms of social evaluation and action. The debates of
the Rome workshop as well as the contributions of participants ventilated some first ideas summarized in
Box 3. These ideas show some similarities with ideas for
other monitoring or assessment initiatives (cf.
Hardi/Zdan 1997, Boyle et al. (2001). Although not
stated that way, one might wish to call the principles
for (social) monitoring the ‘Rome Principles’. Although
the focus was on social monitoring, the participants
explicitly articulated their ideas with integrated monitoring in biosphere reserves, as the former was clearly
seen to be part of the latter.
Thus monitoring implies much more methodological continuity and capacity building than single
measurements or surveys. Any selection of indicators is
guided by both assumptions about what is the case (and
why), and what could possibly be done in order to
achieve a certain goal or desired state of affairs. The concept of sustainable development could and should serve
Box 3
Rome principles of a social monitoring programme for biosphere reserves____________ ___________________
Guiding vision and goals. The first step of a monitoring programme consists in the definition and
acceptance of a guiding vision for a biosphere
reserve and of the goals and relevant issues that
define that vision. If possible, these goals should
include measurable targets and time frames. The
viewpoint of users and stakeholders should be taken
into account from the outset, using participatory
methods of goal formulation. Hence, a clear articulation of the goals and users of the information is
the foundation of any monitoring program. The
Seville Strategy, with its adoption of the concept of
sustainable development, offers a good starting
point for the development of more concrete goals
for reserves.
Conceptual model of the system. The model represents how we look at the system in the context
of our goals. It has to be developed in an open and
flexible process by many disciplines, including the
social sciences. It serves to delineate the system
that should be monitored, should include economic, social and environmental issues and reflects
positive and negative consequences of human
activities. The conceptual model furthermore helps
to relate the indicators to each other in accordance
with the assumed processes and inter-linkages of
the system. The focus is on the biosphere reserve,
but includes relevant relations to the ‘outside world’
(adjacent areas and functional networks).
Set of indicators. The indicators characterize the
system being examined in a meaningful way for
the users (including decision-makers and the scientific community). Indicators should be able to
detect trends and the performance of the system or
its sub-components with regard to the pre-defined
goals. Indicator selection should be guided by the
conceptual model of the biosphere reserve and its
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
14
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
functional network. Relevant scales in time and
space should be covered. A broad and pluralistic
array of possible indicators has to be taken into
account in order to include the specific issues and
methodological features of social sciences in a wide
sense, bridging the gap between quantitative and
qualitative indicators.
Methodology for data collection and storage.
Data should be collected by a methodology that
ensures accuracy, consistency and statistical robustness. Equally important is the storage of data, so
that it is accessible for different users and usable in
the future. No single discipline should be allowed
to impose its own standards of accuracy and robustness on the others involved. A self-reflexive and
critical mode should prevail, and any ‘mystification’
of concepts should be uncovered if occurring.
Again, the specific and pluralistic character of the
social sciences should be taken into account in
order to get broad and in-depth information about
the state and the development of a biosphere
reserve including the people involved. It is necessary to check whether the data needed are already
available from different local or national sources, or
whether they will have to be originally collected. If
relevant social information (e.g. surveys, case studies) are not available in a repeated manner, they
should nevertheless be included. Storage procedures should be uniform in all biosphere reserves
and could be oriented towards some good practice
already established (e.g. by Arab-MAB).
Methodology for calculating indicators. Indicators are based upon primary data, and the former
have to be calculated in a transparent and reproducible way from the latter. Cooperation between
observation, theory and modeling is important to
provide high quality indicators and to adapt the
BRIM SERIES No. 1
as a background for both aspects. Due to its openness
to interpretation this still leaves room for different theoretical approaches and implementation strategies that
are needed to create a definitive set of indicators for
social monitoring in biosphere reserves. There was a
consensus among the experts that up to now no single
approach to monitoring is available that could cover all
necessities and demands of social monitoring in biosphere reserves. A heterogeneity of approaches and a
spirit of learning and creative trial-and-error seem necessary.
The question of monitoring is not specific to
biosphere reserves but is raised by any form of (integrated) assessment of the success of policies, intervention or management in any field of structured human
action. Especially with regard to sustainability the further development of integrated (and include in that,
social) monitoring in biosphere reserves could and
should draw upon some experience from other institutions and initiatives.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
conceptual model according to scientific progress.
Wherever possible, quantification should be aimed
at. Nevertheless, qualitative methods of recording
trends and integration should be used when necessary.
Process for synthesis. Data and indicators have to
be condensed and synthesized into an overall narrative of status and trends of the monitored system
in order to assess progress (or problems). The synthesis process should be designed in an inter- and
transdisciplinary way, using best available techniques and methods for an integration and integrated assessment of data and indicators. It should
be subject to a pilot phase (see below) to determine
which methods for integration and synthesis are
best suited and should be adopted.
Methodology for reporting. The values of indicators and narratives (the results of the synthesis)
have to be reported to the audience or users of the
information. A procedure for doing this in a clear,
purposeful, and timely manner for decision-making
is crucial to the utility and success of the monitoring program. It might be necessary to develop different formats for reporting due to different user
group needs.
Effective communication. Monitoring should
address the needs of the audience and the user
group, include publicly stimulating indicators, and
aim for simplicity and a clear and plain language.
Communication should be organized not as a punctual and one-way operation, but as a steady and dialogue oriented process. The possibilities and needs
of local knowledge should be used and addressed.
To focus monitoring results on the potential actions
(or the action potential) of users and stakeholders
is a central part of effective communication.
Broad participation The discussion of monitoring
results should obtain broad representation of social
groups and ensure the participation of decisionmakers to secure a firm link to adopted policies and
resulting action. It will be important to establish a
long-term relationship with stakeholders in and
around biosphere reserves, built upon mutual
respect and trust. The best way to make people
interested in biosphere reserves seems to be letting
them develop a sense of place and ownership in
order to turn the progress of a biosphere reserve into
something that is relevant to people and worth
engaging for.
Institutional capacity. Monitoring needs continuity, which in turn sets the need for clearly
assigned responsibilities and ongoing support in
the decision-making process, providing institutional
capacity for data collection, maintenance and documentation, and support for local monitoring and
communication capacities. Most probably a flexible framework combining global (MAB-based) and
local facilities and capacities will be most appropriate. Funding and organizational conditions of
the World Network of Biosphere Reserves have to
be adapted to the needs of an evolving monitoring
system. The more a monitoring system is embedded in local and participatory processes and oriented towards the sustainable (regional) development, the more it will be possible to look for new
forms of co-funding and organizational support
from third parties (e.g. via public-private partnerships or contracts with research institutions).
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
15
BRIM SERIES No. 1
III.1.3 Degree
of standardization of indicator sets
The workshop participants discussed the issue
of standardization of a monitoring programme quite
vividly. Between complete standardization for all biosphere reserves and a completely heterogeneous and ‘liberal’ way of doing monitoring, a whole range of possibilities arises. Figure 5 gives some important yet
idealized possibilities in that spectrum.
Figure 5
Trade off between standardization and specifity
of indicator sets
and methodologies
There are clearly some pro’s and con’s of any
solution, and there are trade-offs. At first sight, a standardized monitoring process with universally applied
tools and indicators for all biosphere reserves seems the
only appropriate solution—especially if the link to other
global observation systems is to be established. Nevertheless, the international network of biosphere reserves
is subject to very different natural and socio-economic
conditions, such as income levels, poverty incidence,
resource use pressure, cultural traditions, financial
endowment, facilities to record data etc. In order to
cover that variability—and thus to include as many
reserves of the network as possible—it may be unavoidable to operate with (slightly) different indicator systems, at least in an initial phase.
Single and widely uncoordinated activities in
social monitoring as we find them more or less today
in the world network, on the other hand, offer a great
degree of freedom and the chance to adapt optimally to
local conditions. But they don’t fulfill the criteria of a
worldwide meaningful and comparable monitoring that
is of use for others.
Thus options 1 and 4 seem to be unfeasible.
Option 3, establishing different monitoring systems
which are only coherent with regard to similar world
regions (e.g. with respect to biogeo- and climatological
aspects or due to state of socio-economic development
of host countries), offers a still unsatisfying degree of
integration and comparability. Option 2 then emerges
as the best choice under the current situation. One
might call it a regionally adapted, but still unified global
monitoring system. A close look reveals three elements
(cf. Figure 6):
First, there should be a set of core indicators
with unified methodologies to obtain them for all biosphere reserves worldwide. It is subject to further debate
and possibly the experience of a pilot phase (see below)
to decide which indicators should be chosen here;
Second, all reserves should be offered—as a
kind of menu—a fixed set of indicators from which to
choose according to local conditions. Again, definitions
and methodologies should be identical for that set, the
freedom of choice being only with the indicator as such.
Figure 6:
A regionally adapted,
still unified global monitoring system
NA L
E
INDI C
INDICA
AT
O
RS
TO
COR
O
TI
RS
OP
E I N D I C ATOR S
FRE
Open space for site specific proposals:
◗ Allowing for specific management
situations and objectives;
◗ Link to regional research,
decision making and stakeholder interests;
◗ Testfield for new ideas.
Fixed set for all reserves, selection possible:
◗ Allowing for site specific choises ...
◗ ... while ensuring compatibility
with other sites in similar situations;
Fixed set for all reserves, obligatory:
◗ Comparability and coherence;
◗ Link to activities of international bodies
and policy relevance;
◗ Link to international research activities.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
16
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Third, finally, there should be open space for
specific local conditions that could be filled by every
reserve individually. In addition to regional adaptation
this element would allow for testing new ideas relevant
to the global network as a whole.
The respective proportion of the three elements
within the whole monitoring framework should be balanced and will need to be tested during the pilot phase.
Again, the experts of the workshop made clear that both
the individuality of each single biosphere reserve and
the peculiarities of social sciences backing a social monitoring process demand for a not-only universal solution. This should be kept in mind when we now turn
to the indicator issue.
Indicators for social monitoring
From a methodological point of view indicators
are located above the level of single data. They aggregate and/or condense information that are primarily
given by data sets in order to give a comprehensive
overview and/or to inform about some key characteristics (states, trends) of the observed system. Indicators
work best when related to goal functions. Therefore a
certain conceptual framework is needed for establishing a system of indicators. They serve as tools to measure progress or decline and can be used also in absence
of concrete targets but get their full value in combination with targets.
Discussing indicators for social monitoring in
biosphere reserves was one of the core topics of the
whole workshop. Special attention has been devoted to
the kind of indicators suitable for social monitoring and
to the dimensions of social monitoring and suggestions
of single indicators or even lists of indicators. First, the
participants gave an overview of what kind of data generating methods with relevance to indicators social sciences in general can provide. They suggested BRIM to
be aware of other initiatives and experiences—i.e. to
withstand the seduction of re-inventing the wheel once
more:
◗ Statistical and demographic data;
◗ Economic accountings;
◗ Social surveys (both single and repeated);
◗ Interviews (both standardized and open);
◗ Case studies (both disciplinary
and interdisciplinary);
◗ Rapid rural appraisals;
◗ Country reports and briefings;
◗ Non-reactive methods (observation, field
studies, discourse analysis etc.);
◗ Expert interviews, Delphi studies;
◗ Focus groups;
◗ Lay monitoring.
III.2
Due to the broad scope of social monitoring
necessary to detect progress with regard to sustainable
development in biosphere reserves, virtually all meth-
ods might be appropriate. The history of social monitoring in general provides experience for the necessity
of such a broad approach.
Around World War II the idea of measuring the
total welfare of a nation emerged, influenced first of all
by theoretical innovations (notably John Maynard
Keynes’ General Theory of Growth, Interest and Money
and his quite fiscal policy oriented view of the economic cycle), and second by the practical needs of determining the assessment of a nations economic potential
for warfare. Soon the concept of measuring the wealth
of nations by a single aggregate indicator—the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) as a part of national accounting systems—spread successfully all over the world and
seemed very much appropriate for the expanding
economies of the 1950s and 1960s. During the 1960s
and 1970s a new direction of social indicators and monitoring emerged: the so-called ‘Social Indicator Movement’. It was partially induced by some misfits to GDP,
such as the fact that the Soviet Union was able to launch
satellites despite its relatively low economic performance or the fact that economically rich countries
offered serious shortcomings in some social or educational domains. So social scientists (mostly from sociology, political science, social psychology) vindicated
the idea of a broader set of social indicators that should
better be able to represent the welfare of a country over
time. Even so-called ‘subjective indicators’, based upon
people’s views and assessments, were regarded as necessary. Examples of indicators are:
◗ Educational level of the population
or subsets of it;
◗ Access to social and health services;
◗ Coverage of public infrastructure
and services;
◗ Endowment with important products
and appliances;
◗ Level of satisfaction with social situation;
◗ Attitudes towards social and political issues;
◗ Level of satisfaction with environmental
situation.
In general, the main idea was to uncover the
objective and subjective conditions that make up the
quality of life in a society in a broad sense, leading to
an alternative or at least complementary view on economic and social development. In many countries this
‘movement’ was affiliated with wider social and political reform efforts from governments and social movements. The methodological and empirical yield of the
‘social indicator movement’ was maintained even after
a substantial weakening of its first impulses. Many different forms of social monitoring have been established
on national and international levels, e.g. the Socio-Economic Panel in Germany, the Eurobarometer in the
European Union or the World Values Survey on a global
scale (cf. Habich/Noll 1994, Hartmuth 1998).
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
17
BRIM SERIES No. 1
These initiatives have to be evaluated and
checked with regard to the specific needs of an integrated monitoring in biosphere reserves. Indicator sets
that have been developed in order to measure sustainable development are very helpful. The contributions of
Jesinghaus, Moldan and Prescott-Allen describe some of
them. The workshop participants in general recommended the work of the United Nations Commission
on Sustainable Development (CSD), that not only developed a set of sustainability indicators with regard to
Agenda 21, but also offers a sound and transparent
methodology together with information about the institution providing data upon which the indicator is based
(cf. Moldan’s contribution and CSD 2001). The intention here is not to copy existing indicator lists—the
typical situation of a biosphere reserve has to be recognized and covered by appropriate indicators—but to get
hints or suggestions, to learn and to look for synergies
in linking BRIM to other initiatives.
The need for a conceptual framework mentioned above should by no means prevent the indicator
development and use in biosphere reserves to become
postponed until a ‘final consensus’ has emerged. As indicated above, such a consensus is neither necessary
Table 2
Indicators for social monitoring
in biosphere reserves.
First suggestions
Dimension and Indicator
Background and meaning
Basic demographics
and well-being of people
Biosphere reserves are places where people live, work and
interact with one another (and with nature) in many ways.
Their economic activities, the distribution of economic assets
(including land) and results, their educational and cultural status are relevant both to actual resource use and to future development perspectives. Cultural could be measured and linked
to biodiversity. Health related issues are of specific relevance
for developing countries. It could be useful to develop an integrated lifestyle indicator for the major different groups of
inhabitants. ‘Social Capital’ refers to the interrelations of people (networks, corporations, NGOs) and to the social institutions, rules and norms that support cooperation, participation and development. At the same time, those networks
determine (among other things) the vulnerability of people to
global and regional changes and the adaptive capacity of communities. The conflict issue relates both to possible conflicts
about land or resource use and to other conflicts (e.g. due to
cultural or political reasons).
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
Population and population density
(zone specific).
Types of activities, income, consumption,
poverty.
Property and land use rights.
Equity (income, political status, gender issues).
Educational status.
Cultural, ethnic, religious status.
Health (e.g. nutritional status, mortality).
Social capital, vulnerability and adaptive
capacity.
Conflicts.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
18
nor—probably—desirable. A quite broad and fuzzy
notion of the observed system seems sufficient, a
strongly ‘deductive’ way of developing indicators in a
top-down way not necessary.
The following list of indicators for social monitoring in biosphere reserves (Tab. 2) is drawn from
the discussions in Rome, from the contributions of the
participants, and from the literature. It is meant as a first
suggestion for a pilot phase and should be reviewed in
more detail—especially with regard to data formats,
availability and quality, but of course in the light of the
conceptual framework to be developed—before starting
that phase. With regard to the regionally adapted but
still unified global monitoring system mentioned above,
the 35 indicators suggested here belong to the two categories of ‘core’ and ‘optional’ indicators, without specifying the attribution in detail. The indicators have been
associated with the dimensions of social monitoring
mentioned above. A short description of the indicators’
meaning and the background for its selection is given
as well.
Of course not all of the indicators proposed
here will be monitored at once and at the same time by
all biosphere reserves. Monetary, staff related, skill
related and other constraints today prevent most
reserves to realize a social monitoring programme far
beyond the level indicated above. That is why a flexible and stepwise process of implementation is needed,
starting with some pilot projects.
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Dimension and indicator
Background and meaning
Ecosystem use
It is crucial for social monitoring in biosphere reserves to
understand and to observe the concrete use of ecosystem
goods and services (including land use and food) by residents.
Furthermore it is necessary to know to what degree what
group is more dependent than others, and what conflicts are
there (or might arise over time). The biosphere reserves’
ecosystems should as well be considered as a whole in economic terms that include non-monetary indicators.
◗
◗
◗
◗
Type of use of ecosystem goods and services.
Degree of dependency on local resource use
(export/import).
Conflicts on land and resource use.
Value of the ecosystem goods and services
(monetary and non-monetary terms).
Socio-economic dynamism
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
Temporary and steady in- and out-migration
of residents and workforce.
Tourism (by region, income, secondary effects,
and type).
Ex-/import of goods and services.
Private sector identification, involvement
and support.
Contribution of the biosphere reserves’
economy to regional and national economies.
Management, participation and governance
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
Degree of residents’ participation
in decision-making.
Management style in biosphere reserves.
Locus of control and decision.
Role of biosphere reserves for political decisionmaking at different levels.
Monetary transfers.
Values and attitudes
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
Attitudes of residents and non-residents
to biosphere reserves, nature conservation
and environmental issues.
Economic preferences with regard to
conservation and sustainable development.
Aesthetic preferences.
Ecological and sustainability knowledge
of residents (and visitors).
Degree of personal happiness with the reserve.
Sense of ownership.
The links between a biosphere reserve and the socio-economic dynamism of a region is very important for the sustainable development of reserves. The first question is where
people live and work with regard to the different zones and
adjacent regions. Tourism offers economic opportunities and
should be monitored in some detail (e.g. with regard to duration or sustainability). The economic relations to the ‘outer
world’ should be observed. Furthermore, it is becoming more
and more important to involve the private sector (e.g. in terms
of regional products, marketing, donations). Finally, biosphere
reserves contribute via tourism, specific form of agriculture etc.
to regional and national economies.
For the performance of a biosphere reserves questions of governance, management and participation are crucial. The measurement of different management and communication ‘styles’
might be difficult, but very helpful even on a qualitative basis.
The participation of local people and organizations with regard
to decisions is an important issue. Finally it should be monitored whether or not biosphere (reserve) policy is important
to different political levels. It is also important to learn and
report about the financial transfers to and within a biosphere
reserve (e.g. for nature conservation, for regional development); this information should include amounts, types,
sources, equivalents and recipients of monetary transfers.
The values and attitudes of people (residents, nonresidents) to biosphere reserves, conservation goals and
the environment in general are important to know and to
compare with national or worldwide surveys. Possible tools
are the “myths of nature” developed by the Cultural
Theory or semantic profiles for different choices. Aesthetic
preferences should be included, as well as the willingnessto-pay (both for conservation measures and for reserve
specific products and services). The ecological knowledge
of residents (e.g. indigenous knowledge) is important for
an anchoring of conservation issues in peoples’ minds.
The overall happiness with a biosphere reserve is a good
indicator for support. The sense of ownership would be
very helpful—especially with regard to identification, land
use rights and participation.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
19
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Dimension and indicator
Background and meaning
Information, education and research
Biosphere reserves have a clear mission with regard to education, information and research. In order to monitor the fulfillment of this mission, it is important to have a look at educational and informational activities of the management.
Scientific activities (including monitoring) should be observed
as well.
◗
◗
◗
Educational activities of the biosphere reserve
management.
Informational activities of the biosphere reserve
management.
Scientific activities in the biosphere reserve.
Future
◗
◗
◗
Expectations and fears for the future by experts
and residents.
Major threats and conflicts.
Possible future solutions.
A special indicator section should be dedicated to trend detection, working as a kind of early warning system provided both
by expert elicitation and residents opinions. Not only future
threats and conflicts should be included here, but also possible solutions. With regard to experts the ‘Delphi-Method’ is
available, representative surveys might be accomplished by
‘Focus Group’ Method.
The question of integrative methods
and tools
The Rome workshop was on social monitoring
of biosphere reserves, not on integrated monitoring,
which was subject of a BRIM special meeting. Nevertheless the participants of the workshop kept the question of integration constantly in mind. Integration is a
desiderate not only from a merely scientific point of
view, but also with regard to the vision and goal of sustainable development for biosphere reserves. The main
focus questions for integrated monitoring should thus
be:
1. How do human-nature-interactions in
biosphere reserves perform over time?
2. How is that performance to be evaluated
against the sustainability goal?
3. What should be changed/addressed in order
to better reach those goals?
The participants of the Rome workshop discussed some of those integrative tools and approaches
in some detail and debated their pros (strengths) and
cons (weaknesses) regarding the specific purposes of
biosphere reserves. The following list (Tab. 3) is based
on these discussions, not on a ‘consensus’ of the participants.
The main message from this discussion states
that there is no single best way of integrating social
with natural monitoring activities for biosphere reserves.
All approaches show positive and negative aspects alike,
none has been adapted to the necessities of monitoring
in biosphere reserves. It should thus be left to further
assessment steps and the pilot phase to decide which
approach to choose. It could be a wise decision to test
different ones in that phase in order to either select one
or to seek for some combinations.
III.3
Integrating indicators and assessments in a
common framework, shared by a multitude of different
actors with different scientific and other backgrounds
is a complicated task. Studies on inter- and transdisciplinary research, being a minimum pre-condition for
that purpose, show this (Häberli et al. 2000). When the
monitoring in biosphere reserves is to be re-oriented
towards an integrated monitoring system with a high
degree of comparability and policy orientation, methods
and tools for integration are necessary. They should be
able to bridge the gap between:
◗ social and natural sciences;
◗ qualitative and quantitative information;
◗ different regions and cultures;
◗ different scales.
Implementatio
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
20
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
IV.
Implementation
It has been stated several times in this report
and shall be repeated here again: monitoring as a continuous and methodologically guided activity needs
human capital, skills, money, guidelines, routines, and
the like. The participants of the workshop were well
aware of the fact that the implementation of a social
monitoring system would be no easy task, especially
when it has to be part of the integrated monitoring initiative BRIM is aiming at. There is a series of barriers
to social monitoring in biosphere reserves that prevent
social monitoring from being exercised more frequently
than it is done today. Implementing social monitoring
needs to acknowledge these barriers and to try to over-
BRIM SERIES No. 1
come them—a process that might be much easier if a
changed perspective acknowledging biosphere reserves
as ‘social organisms’. Other implementation issues were
discussed in the workshop and are reported here briefly
and without systematic claims.
Changing the framing: biosphere reserves
as ‘social organisms’
Biosphere reserves are not only spatial entities
entailing specific patterns of species, ecosystems and
land cover, but they constitute ‘social organisms’, i.e.
social systems with different actors, rules and organizations, holding different values, interests and worldIV.1
on
views. Seen from the ecosystems point of view, the natural sphere encompasses humans, sustaining their lives,
supporting—sometimes suffering from their activities.
But a reversal of perspectives is necessary: so far the natural sphere is totally included in the minds and actions
of individuals and their mutual relations. Even though
the ‘pure’ nature of the core area was selected and is
monitored by scientists, it is protected by governments
and managers, and under virtual pressure by users.
Table 3
Methods for Integration.
(Foci, strengths and weaknesses)
Method
Main focus
Strength
Weakness
Integrated
assessment
Total system performance and
evaluation against
management/policy options.
◗ Policy orientation.
◗ Stakeholder dialogue.
◗ Model integration.
◗ No repeated activity.
◗ Human response sometimes
not included.
Well-being
of nations
Indicator system for a combined
view of human and ecosystem
well-being.
◗ Global perspective.
◗ Human well-being more
convincingly covered than
in GDP or HDI.
◗ Only nation wide indicators.
◗ Ecosystem well-being with
some question marks.
◗ Human well-being neglects
capabilities.
Syndrome
approach
Systems analysis of non-sustainable patterns of human-nature
interactions.
◗ Linking modeling
and case study research.
◗ Systemic and pattern oriented
indicators.
◗ Regionally explicit, policy
oriented.
◗ No explicit positive views
(visions).
◗ Up to now stronger bias to the
developing world than to the
industrialized one.
Dashboard of
sustainability
System of sustainability
indicators.
◗ Including all sustainability
dimensions.
◗ Oriented toward policy making
◗ Based upon available data.
◗ Maybe open to manipulation.
◗ Lacking theory and model
of sustainability.
Case studies,
regional studies
Narratives (including numbers
and trends) of specific
human-nature interactions
in space and time.
◗ Broad picture, in-depth
analysis, close to stakeholders
◗ Human dimension mostly
explicitly included.
◗ Sensitive to regional
and cultural differences.
◗ Lack of comparability.
◗ Mostly lack of explicit model
or theory.
◗ Problems with representativity
and reproducibility.
Millennium
Ecosystem
Assessment
Multiscale assessment of
ecosystem changes under
human pressure and
of the human use of ecosystem
goods and services.
◗ Transdisciplinarity.
◗ Multilevel approach.
◗ Human use of ecosystem
services as a core issue.
◗ Maybe slight domination
of the natural science side.
◗ Maybe conservation goal
is under-represented.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
21
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Furthermore it was highlighted several times
during the workshop that biosphere reserves have to be
regarded together with their surrounding context: adjacent regions, national and global levels. Again this context is defined and governed by social forces and structures that have to be taken into account.
Social monitoring in biosphere reserves could
best be implemented if they were seen as as social organisms. This might include the following statements:
◗ Nature and ecosystems are social constructions
of scientists, officials, and other actors in the
field of nature conservation;
◗ Conservation is a form of using nature for specific social purposes (e.g. studying the rare case
of relatively undisturbed natural systems);
◗ There are conflicting forms of use of land and
ecosystems, all of them have some rationale in
the logic and the actions of the social actors
engaged in the conflict;
◗ A biosphere reserve is a jurisdictional, organizational and social unit located in a wider economic, social, political and cultural environment that is driven by different interests, world
views, necessities, etc. Making biosphere
reserves count for that environment means to
acknowledge (not necessarily to subscribe to)
those interests, world views, and necessities;
◗ Communication with stakeholders and participative issues are neither a one sided nor a
one point task, but rather ongoing activities
that belong to the core of biosphere reserve
management. Strong convictions about the
necessity of nature conservation and active
engagement in stakeholder dialogues—especially with skeptics and critics—are by no
means mutually exclusive. They are supportive
and complementary to each other;
◗ The biosphere reserve is a social system in itself,
subject to social dynamics and (possibly) conflict due to different kinds and levels of knowledge, organizational position, power, social capital, and the like. The same holds true for the
MAB Programme in general;
◗ Social and other monitoring programs do not
only have scientific value, they offer benefits for
those that support them and for societies as a
whole, as they reveal the contribution of biodiversity and biosphere reserves to the sustainable
well-being of humankind, nations and regions.
Potential barriers to adoption of social
monitoring in biosphere reserves
The contributions of Stoll-Kleemann and especially of Lee entailed five of the most important barriers to adoption of social monitoring in biosphere
reserves: (1) insufficient funds, (2) interagency rivalries,
(3) insufficient political will, (4) treatment of social and
IV.2
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
22
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
economic concerns as residual values, and (5) cultural
and institutional conflict. In order to establish a successful implementation of social monitoring in biosphere reserves those barriers should be overcome by following some basic rules:
1. Funding. Social monitoring activities are relatively cheap if compared to other, e.g. natural
science based forms of environmental data and
information gathering that might need satellite
imagery or supercomputer power. Nevertheless,
the social science part of an integrated monitoring scheme should not be regarded as a free
operation. Due to the academic and professional
background of most biosphere management
officials, even those relatively modest tasks in
the framework of a first pilot phase of a socioeconomic monitoring programme are very
likely to be beyond their scope in terms of time,
money or skills.
2. Rivalries. Biosphere reserves are subject to
national jurisdictions and thus managed under
the auspices of national policy institutions and
their degree of fragmentation/centralization.
They often compete with each other, instead of
cooperating. Each agency develops a distinct
mission and organizational culture. Most agencies have not been assigned explicit responsibility for social and economic functions of the
lands they manage. Governments have lacked
effective means for promoting integration of
functions among highly differentiated agencies.
3. Lacking political will. Sustainable development
and nature conservation are not always adopted
as important political goals, and even if so
the degree of implementation varies. As sustainable development asks for a policy (and
polity) integration that traditional forms of government still widely lack, the Seville Strategy
has no strong political support in government
agencies.
4. Socio-economic concerns as residuals. Commitment to treating biosphere reserves as laboratories for sustainable development is often
inhibited by a biocentric emphasis on the value
assigned to biosphere reserves as protected
areas, excluding or marginalizing social and
economic values. This attitude presents a significant obstacle for implementing the Seville
Strategy with its emphasis on biosphere reserves
as “…theatres for reconciling people and
nature.”
5. Cultural conflict. Protracted cultural conflicts
have grown from the tension between a biocentric view of biosphere reserves and a view
that gives equal emphasis to human needs and
values. These conflicts are nourished and sustained by the educational and scientific skills of
BRIM SERIES No. 1
people that bear responsibilities for biosphere
reserve management and research, mostly from
the natural sciences. Many natural scientists
regard social monitoring as residual if not
superfluous.
without the acceptance and/or active support of
stakeholders and local people (e.g. Papua New
Guinea). Many development agencies have
accepted participation as a crucial element for
their work.
Implementing social monitoring presupposes
to be aware of these barriers wherever they might turn
up and to address them adequately. The indicated
change of perspectives facilitates such an endeavour.
Examples from nature conservation sites especially (but not exclusively) in developing countries
show that participation is a major success factor in
nature conservation—if thoroughly and seriously realized (Beltrán 1999).
In many respects biological oriented monitoring system might be characterized as an expert driven
process. In opposition to this the role of “experts” seems
to be more limited in social monitoring, where participatory processes are integrated. This should be reflected
by the selection of methods and indicators (e.g. by Participatory Rural Appraisal or by a combination of fixed
indicators—mostly derived from science, policy and
expert interests—and of optional ones). The Sustainability Dashboard presented by Jesinghaus at the workshop allows for online change of indicators—and outputs. It is open to manipulation in a positive sense: it
makes transparent a process of weighting and choosing
that otherwise takes place only ‘behind the curtains’.
The technical outset allows for online weighing, crossanalysis, mapping etc. Jesinghaus wanted the dashboard
to be regarded as an entry point for researchers and policy makers. The Ecosystem Millennium Assessment presented by Petschel-Held entails a participatory component as well as the Well-Being of Nations approach
presented by Prescott-Allen. Stoll-Kleemann provided
examples of successful participatory approaches to
nature conservation. Van Helden did so by an in-depth
analysis of an Integrated Conservation and Development Programme in Papua New Guinea. Fowkes
showed for the case of a protected area near Cape Town
that nature conservation and monitoring activities can
even be used for the empowerment of otherwise disadvantaged people. Lee emphasized the constitutive role
of local knowledge for conservation goals.
It is important to note, finally, that participation
has different meanings in different contexts and regions.
A core element of meaning focuses the relationship
between the conservation agency and the population living in and around a biosphere reserves, affected by conservation and management goals and decisions. But as
the social characteristics of the population and their
socio-economic and other geographical contexts vary
widely, the forms and degree of participation as well as
the need for participation differ as well. One focus could
be the situation and empowerment of the poor (cf.
Fowkes, Nguyen), the degree of acceptance of the biosphere reserve by residents and visitors, the involvement
of the local economy (e.g. by marketing of regional
products) or the general degree of identification or sat-
Participation
One of the concepts most referred to during the
workshop was participation, for several reasons:
1. Participation means to include stakeholders and
potentially affected people in deliberative and
decision processes that have consequences for
their daily lives. If biosphere reserves are seen
as social organisms, not only as special areas for
nature and wildlife, virtually all management
issues in those reserves have consequences for
them and should thus not be taken without
their participation;
2. Observing and monitoring social actors and systems means—in contrast to natural monitoring—to observe observers, and to use tools and
techniques that are at least to some degree
derivatives from capacities of people in their
everyday lives. Some monitoring programs in
nature reserves make even use of that fact. Letting people participate in monitoring activities
thus entails potential for their improvement
both with regard to their scientific value and
their relevance for social actors;
3. Social monitoring makes most sense in the context of defined goals and targets. These goals
and targets widely define what to monitor. They
cannot be given by science or the management
of a reserve exclusively, but should be found in
a participatory manner. Otherwise defined goals
and dependent monitoring systems run the risk
of loosing relevance and value;
4. The overarching goal for biosphere reserves,
according to the ‘Seville Strategy’, is Sustainable
Development. We best regard it not as a fixed
set of targets, but as a loosely defined framework for social search and learning processes,
leading to regionally and temporally adopted
definitions of concrete targets. That implies a
broad participation of people in the process of
defining the goal—as it is recognized by the
Agenda 21. The broad participation of people
and organizations is also needed to make the
goal evolve—not only to implement it;
5. Finally, in some regions of the world jurisdictional and political realities make it impossible
to realize sustainability and conservation goals
IV.3
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
23
BRIM SERIES No. 1
isfaction with the performance of the biosphere reserve
as an institution (cf. van Helden).
◗
The broad coverage of topics and indicators
monitored worldwide with regard to global
change issues (climate change, biodiversity,
water, land use and cover change, public opinion, willingness to pay for conservation, etc.).
The more BRIM comes up with a comparatively
useful set of indicators all over the globe, the
more scientists will be attracted, as globally covering and continuously gathered data are very
rare in social sciences.
As has been mentioned several times before in
this report, indicators make sense only in the
context of an environment both of management
goals and of hypothesis regarding humannature interactions. Thus for science to interlink with a BRIM social monitoring programme
it is crucial to communicate the contribution to
sustainable development and to some core
questions of the environmentally/sustainability
oriented social science community. This could
best be achieved if (leading) social scientists
could be involved in the process of monitoring
and the assessment of monitoring results.
As social monitoring in biosphere reserves is a
rather new and uncommon activity, it seems
adequate to install monitoring by creating an
open learning process that entails the potential
for new ideas, trial-and-error, adaptation to new
and/or changing conditions etc. The instrument
of core, optional and free indicators discussed
above offers the opportunity to combine comparability and flexibility alike. The involvement
of local/national research groups could offer
further advantages in terms of creativity, learning and involvement.
BRIM could establish the institution of a “Biosphere Reserve Guest Scientist”, e.g. for one year.
Guest scientists in biosphere reserves would be
offered a funded possibility to do research in
and around a single biosphere reserve with
regard to its conservation and sustainable use
goals, supported by MAB/BRIM in terms of
monetary, room and staff support (coordinated
with local reserves) and access to international
research networks. In their work they should
use the data from the local monitoring program. The guest scientist further undertakes
the commitment to deliver at least one research
paper at the end of the period. MAB should
examine the possibility of creating an attractive
research paper series to publish these results.
Concluding
recommendations
...
V.
Concluding recommendations
and remarks
The workshop showed that there exists a strong
synergistic relation between social sciences and sustainability oriented monitoring activities on the one
hand and biosphere reserves as monitoring areas and
‘laboratories’ for sustainable development on the other
one. Especially the latter idea, officially adopted in the
‘Seville Strategy’, offers great opportunities for an integrated monitoring programme with a strong social science component. The workshop participants shared the
view particularly expressed by Kruse-Graumann that
up to now most biosphere reserves do not adequately
reflect the admittedly high claims put forward by the
sustainability concept. Nevertheless they strongly recommended to follow that pathway.
It became clear during the workshop that there
are quite a lot of barriers to the implementation of a
meaningful and sound social monitoring system. Nevertheless the approaches, initiatives and experiences
reported and discussed at the Rome workshop nourish
a strong confidence that those barriers could be overcome and that such a monitoring system could successfully be established. At least two crucial conditions
have to be met: (1) to make a really integrated monitoring programme, including solid social monitoring,
attractive and valuable for others (scientists, initiatives,
monitoring programmes), (2) to establish pilot projects
for social monitoring—showing clear links to integrated
monitoring—in order to test and improve existing systems and schemes in the context of BRIM and MAB in
general. Finally it is necessary (3) to communicate the
benefits of social monitoring to the MAB community
and responsible people at the biosphere reserve level.
Enforce research activities
in the field of social monitoring
It became clear during the workshop that a
monitoring programme that would be tailored to the
needs of managing biosphere reserves and/or the issues
discussed at the general MAB level exclusively was
about to fail as a scientifically and globally relevant initiative. The MAB/BRIM monitoring programme as such,
and its results especially, should be of high interest for
social sciences and for integrated scientific endeavors
(like Integrated Assessment or ‘Sustainability Science’).
Scientists should be attracted by the monitoring results,
should like to use the data delivered for testing hypotheses, or should even be willing to actively engage with
and participate in the BRIM process. Several aspects of
such a programme could raise the interest of scientists:
V.1
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
24
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
◗
◗
◗
Besides, MAB/BRIM should encourage the international social science community to actively engage
with biosphere reserves in general and social monitoring there in particular. As scientists usually react best
both upon monetary and reputation oriented incentives
BRIM SERIES No. 1
(including interesting research questions), MAB should
try to provide both.
◗
Initiate pilot projects
One of the core ideas of the Rome workshop
with regard to the further process of implementing
social monitoring on a broader and more integrated
basis was to establish a limited set of pilot projects for
social monitoring in biosphere reserves. Pilot projects
offer two possibilities, first to apply existing knowledge
and second to close existing knowledge gaps and to
learn about an appropriate and sustainable monitoring
programme. They could be used to adapt to different
regional (biological, socio-economical) conditions and
to different methodological approaches to monitoring in
order to select the right tools and indicators for a more
covering monitoring activity around the globe.
The alternative to pilot projects—starting with
a full fledged and well defined monitoring programme
at as many sites as possible—was discussed briefly and
rejected for reasons of lacking practicability, lacking
flexibility and deficient reflection of the state of the art.
The pilot project option, instead, should pay attention
to the following aspects:
◗ Pilot project regions have to be selected carefully. Besides the condition of practicability
(where are social monitoring activities already
underway?) the question of generalization
should be kept in mind. It would be very useful to include industrialized and developing
countries, different types of natural vegetation
and wildlife, different forms of using ecosystem
goods and services.
◗ The methodology for a pilot phase should be
selected at least with equal care. The Rome
workshop underlined the inherent methodological (and paradigmatic) plurality of the
social sciences which should be covered. Several useful approaches have been discussed
briefly. MAB/BRIM should initiate an international debate about appropriate methods, could
empower studies with that specific focus, and
hold an expert workshop on methodological
(including technical) questions of social monitoring (leading to a sort of manual for how to
do social monitoring in biosphere reserves)
before the initial phase is started.
◗ Closely related to methodological questions is
the selection of indicators. The Rome workshop suggested a system of (a) core, (b)
optional and (c) free indicators. But even if this
suggestion was to be adopted, there is still the
need to select the respective items and to define
the technicalities (format, resolution, documentation etc.). Again, these issues could be
part of the initial expert workshop mentioned
above. The indicator selection should carefully
V.2
◗
observe the linkages between BRIM and other
global monitoring programs.
In order to contribute to the sustainable development goal endorsed by the Seville Strategy,
pilot projects should include a strong participative component. The concrete content of participation could differ, but the hard core idea of
involving people in the process of decision
making—and monitoring—that affects their
daily lives remains crucial and should be
observed right from the outset by the pilot projects.
As pilot projects will operate in an experimental and rather open mode, their development
and their results have to be carefully reviewed
by a group of national and international peers.
It could be helpful to firmly establish a board
of experts from the social sciences and transdisciplinary efforts worldwide in order to carefully compare and assess the pilot projects with
regard to methodologies, indicators, participation, contribution to management, and contribution to other international research and monitoring programs. These assessments should be
published via the MAB internet site and open
to debate.
The results of the peer review process should
lead to recommendations for a next phase of social monitoring, covering more (ideally: all) sites worldwide.
The best way would be to organize a second workshop
for social monitoring (as part of integrated monitoring), based upon the expert recommendations, including representatives from the pilot projects and other
international experts. Analogous to the pilot phase initial workshop, this one should develop the outlines for
a global social monitoring programme in biosphere
reserves.
Links to other monitoring
initiatives/programmes and organizations
It has been underlined by the participants of the
Rome workshop several times: MAB/BRIM operates not
in a closed, but in an open world, where different
research and monitoring programmes are operative or
underway. It is both wise and cost-effective to ensure
that the BRIM process and its products fit into that open
world, conveying mutual benefits and learning.
A first international initiative/programme to be
mentioned is the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) which has identified not only a set of sustainability indicators but also adapted them for the purposes of national peculiarities. Furthermore CSD has
developed a framework for indicators and a transparent
methodology for their definition and use (CSD 2001).
Other international monitoring and survey programmes
with relevance to the BRIM process are the World ValV.3
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
25
BRIM SERIES No. 1
ues Survey, Eurobarometer, Transparency International,
Biodiversity Convention, Millennium Assessment, Long
Term Ecological Research Network (LTER).
One initiative has to be mentioned here more
explicitly, although it is only in the stage of first ideas:
the so-called ‘Sustainability Geoscope’, vindicated by
the International Human Dimensions Programme on
Global Environmental Change (IHDP) and actively supported by research institutes in Germany (Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research) and the USA
(Harvard University), both following the idea of a ‘Sustainability Science’. The Geoscope idea will contribute
to the narrowing of a critical data gap between social
and natural sciences in global environmental change
research. Whereas the latter dispose of large, highly
sophisticated and quite expensive global observation
networks, including satellites, ships and terrestrial stations that provide a continuous data stream since many
years, the social science data base on global environmental change issues is small, narrow, incomplete, often
simple, not coherent, and under-financed. The Geoscope initiative wants to overcome that situation and to
develop a world network of representative spatial sample units that should be observed in great detail both
from ‘top down’ (including remote sensing e.g. for land
use change issues) and ‘bottom-up’ methods (such as
field studies or social surveys). The World Network of
Biosphere Reserves could be part of that emerging network, both providing and receiving data from the Geoscope.
As monitoring does not only refer to data and
indicators but includes a methodological and goal
framework as well, the links to other programmes may
have different aspects: (i) providing data and indicators,
(ii) using data and indicators generated by others, (iii)
exchange of ideas, concepts and methodologies, (iv)
exchange of interpretations and assessments, (v) common development of reporting and communication
schemes.
More research is needed to identify the concrete
connections and interfaces between BRIM and other
monitoring programmes, especially in the phase of pilot
projects. This inter-linkage process has to be facilitated
by a central body within MAB, e.g. the MAB Secretariat.
The outlines of a full fledged MAB monitoring programme and its linkages to other institutions relevant
to monitoring is given in Figure 7.
As a first distinction actors at the international
and the local/national levels have to be taken into
account. The accomplishment of a monitoring system
on the biosphere reserve level, including indicator selection, is coordinated and supported by MAB. Both the
MAB “Social Monitoring Board” and the “National
Boards for Social Monitoring” are functional terms: in
an institutional sense they could be realized in many
ways, ranging e.g. from a group of people who take
responsibility for social monitoring at different levels
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
26
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
(for example from the MAB Secretariat or the MAB
National Committees) up to more institutionalized solutions. It is important to involve the national level as well,
as National Committee (or may be: Monitoring Board)
members could support monitoring processes by their
own professional skills and networks, and of course by
the voice option. They interact with the international
MAB level on a regular basis (indicated by a dotted
line), with the biosphere reserves in their countries, and
with the scientific community. Science is decisive for
social monitoring, especially if no established and
widely accepted methodology exists. Therefore all MAB
institutions involved (reserves, national and international levels) should closely interact with scientists and
scientific institutions. They should critically accompany
the whole monitoring process.
Biosphere reserves, which are at the core of
monitoring activities, will have to develop social monitoring facilities which many of them do not dispose of
now. This could be handled in a quite flexible manner,
ranging from the denomination of a responsible person
to the firm establishment of an organizational body both
responsible for and actively engaged in social monitoring. In any case they will have to develop at least a kernel of a monitoring facility in order to support the global
monitoring process, to capitalize from their potential
and to make use of social monitoring for their own purposes.
Local and national stakeholders play a crucial
role for monitoring. Their participation should both
shape the outlines of the monitoring process and the use
of their results. In the end they will have to make sense
of the observations in order to better achieve a regional
sustainable development and to better understand and
communicate the benefits of nature conservation.
Data centres at the national and international
levels already do observation of socio-economic states
and trends, including market and opinion research. In
accordance with the overall establishment of a coherent monitoring system in the pilot phase the information provided by those already existing body of work
can be very helpful and cost-effective. The co-operation
with existing data centers prevents the MAB/BRIM
process from ‘re-inventing the wheel’ in some domains
of observation and monitoring. Examples are national
statistical offices or Eurobarometer in the case of Western Europe.
Global monitoring programmes should be part
of the evolving BRIM process to establish social monitoring in a more systematic manner. This holds even
more true for integrated monitoring, as the cobweb of
natural science-led monitoring programmes is much
more densely woven than the social science driven networks. As existing monitoring programmes rely on specific research (and then of course: management) questions (such as “Where are the global carbon sinks?”),
whereas data centers operate on a more data-driven
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Figure 7
BRIM social monitoring
and its context
Gobal
monitoring
programmes
MAB Social
Monitoring Board
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
Science
Data centers
LOCAL and NATIONAL LEVELS
Biosphere reserve
National board
for social monitoring
(Social monitoring
facility)
mode, BRIM will have to co-operate with monitoring
programmes in a more exchange oriented manner,
whereas data centers will mainly be providers of data.
Communicate benefits of social monitoring
If social monitoring is not accepted or even
demanded for by those that in the end will have to convey and carry it, it will not be implemented successfully.
This is quite a trivial observation from everyday social
life, very elaborated in organizational and motivation
theories. Nevertheless organizations and decision makers tend to forget it while creating top-down agendas
based upon deliberations on high-level relevance and
what seems plausible to them—and mostly fail. Social
monitoring in biosphere reserves should take those
lessons serious. And they can do so as social monitoring offers a range of benefits for biosphere reserves—
both as ‘social organisms’ and as conservation and sustainable use sites ‘out there’.
1. Monitoring provides a systematic and timely
stream of feed-back information about the ‘wellbeing’ of biosphere reserves with regard to the
conservation goal and the progress achieved in
establishing it firmly in the heads, hearts and
actions of people both within and outside the
reserve. Deficits and distance-to-target information is thus included and could be used to
improve management. Thus the management
and staff of biosphere reserves (and responsible
persons and bodies on the national and international levels) is a clear beneficiary from monitoring. This might contribute positively to the
motivation of staff and management.
2. If done properly, social monitoring clearly
shows the environmental, social and economic
V.4
Stakeholder
benefits that biosphere reserves offer both to
their inhabitants and to the regions and countries they are located in. These systematically
provided sustainability benefits of biosphere
reserves remain widely unseen otherwise and
offer a good basis for a constructive dialogue
with policy makers and the general public that
are both crucial for the public and administrative support of biosphere reserves and nature
conservation in general. The right framing and
communication of monitoring results will be
crucial in order to capitalize from it. The closer
the links to the well-being of the public and the
decision needs of policy makers, the more the
communication will be successful for the conservation issue.
3. Monitoring of biosphere reserves could, if indicators and reporting schemes are selected
accordingly, give societies a clear picture of the
social attitudes towards biodiversity and nature
conservation. These issues are almost never collected, as e.g. social surveys on the environmental attitudes of people mostly fail to cover
these issues. The whole issue of biodiversity
conservation has been on the rise on the scientific agenda in recent years, but without substantial backing by surveys which might indicate its position on the public agenda.
4. A sound and sustainability related monitoring
scheme in biosphere reserves would strengthen
the attractiveness of MAB for other observation, monitoring and research activities in the
field of global change and sustainable development. MAB could underline its claim of being
an inter- and trans-disciplinary institution with
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
27
BRIM SERIES No. 1
special focus on the human-nature interface
with substantial empirical data, which at the
same time are useful for others.
5. Monitoring—both seen as methodology and as
a stream of results—might substantially support the educational task of biosphere reserves.
If an appropriate, user-friendly format of data
analysis and presentation is chosen, monitoring
results could be of interest for schools and other
education sector institutions around biosphere
reserves.
The underlying assumption of all the input for
concretion of social monitoring in this report is that the
opening of biosphere reserves monitoring for social
issues serves at the same time the aim of a better quality of life of inhabitants on one hand and natural conservation on the other. With regard to natural conservation the sustainability debate enlights one main
interlikage: “You will do it with the people or you won’t
do it!” This should inform the ‘spirit’ of communication of benefits.
Conclusion
Biosphere reserves have to be are regarded as
model regions for sustainable development. The core
region of natural conservation is surrounded by others
where limited forms of the use of natural resources are
allowed and supported.
Usually monitoring activities focus upon biological aspects of biosphere reserves. But biosphere
reserves are not “outside” society, but part of it—
designed, maintained and used by social actors and systems. If social actors are not taken into account, reserves
won’t live. People have to support or at least accept the
goals of natural conservation, and they will do less so
if they are not actively involved, if they do not share
benefits, if they cannot participate. These goals cannot
be reached if no socio-economic monitoring takes place,
as it is the case today in most conservation areas worldwide.
MAB/BRIM wants to contribute to the change
of this situation. Socio-economic monitoring of biosphere reserves should complete the existing monitoring
activities and should—on the long run—be established
as a regular process for their successful and adaptive
management—and for public communication and decision making processes. The Rome workshop on Social
Monitoring in Biosphere Reserves was a first encouraging step to help creating a framework for social monitoring as a substantial part of integrated monitoring.
V.5
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
28
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
VI.
References
References
Attwell, C.A.M., Cotterill, F.P.D. 2000. Postmodernism and African
conservation science. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9: 559-577.
Becker, E., Jahn, T., Stiess, E., Wehling, P. 1997. Sustainability: A CrossDisciplinary Concept for Social Transformation. UNESCO-MOST,
Policy Paper No. 6, Paris.
Beltrán, J. 1999. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas.
Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies. World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA), Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines
Series No. 4.
Bodley, J.H. 2002. Anthropology and Global Environmental Change. In:
T. Munn (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, John
Wiley & Sons. (preprint)
Boyle, M., Kay, J.J., Pond, B. 2001. Monitoring in Support of Policy: an
Adaptive Ecosystem Approach. In: T. Munn (Ed.): Encyclopedia of
Global Environmental Change, John Wiley & Sons. (preprint)
Brandt, J., Vejre, H. (Eds.) 2001. Multifunctional Landscapes – Theory,
Values and History. WIT Press, Advances in Ecological Sciences,
Southhampton.
Clark, W.C. 2001. Research Systems for a Transition Toward
Sustainability. GAIA, 10 (4): 264-266.
Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260.
CSD (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Commission on Sustainable Development) 2001. Indicators of
Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies.
Background Paper No. 3. United Nations, New York.
Daily, G. (Ed.) 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural
Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Daily, G.C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich,
P.R., Folke, C., Hansson, A., Jansson, B.-O., Kautsky, N., Levin, S.,
Lubchenco, J., Mäler, K.-G., Simpson, D., Starrett, D., Tilman, D.,
Walker, B. 2000. The Nature of Value and the Value of Nature.
Science, 289: 395-396.
Danielsen, F., Balete, D.S., Poulsen, M.K., Enghoff, M., Nozawa, C.M.,
Jensen, A.E. 2000. A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in
protected areas of a developing country. Biodiversity and Conservation,
9: 1671-1705.
Erdmann, K.-H., Mager, T.J. (Eds.) 2000. Innovative Ansätze zum Schutz
der Natur – Visionen für die Zukunft. Springer, Berlin.
Fischer, W. 2000, Sind Biosphärenreservate Modellregionen für
zukünftige Entwicklung? TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten, 2: 30-31.
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures
25: 739-755.
Ghimire, K.B., Pimbert, M.P. (Eds.) 1997. Social Change and
Conservation. Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks
and Protected Areas. Earthscan, London.
Habich, R., Noll, H.-H. 1994. Soziale Indikatoren und
Sozialberichterstattung. Internationale Erfahrungen und Stand der
Forschung. Bern.
Häberli, R., Scholz, R.W., Bill, A., Welti, A. (Eds.) 2000.
Transdisciplinarity – Joint Problem-Solving among Science,
Technology and Society, Workbook I, Haffmanns, Zürich.
Hammer, T. 2001. Biosphärenreservate und regionale (Natur)Parke –
Neue Konzepte für die nachhaltige Regional- und
Kulturlandschaftsentwicklung. GAIA, 10 (4): 279-285.
Hardi, P., Zdan, T. (Eds.) 1997. Principles in Practice. Assessing
Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable
Development (IISD), Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Hartmuth, G. 1998. Ansätze und Konzepte eines umweltbezogenen
gesellschaftlichen Monitoring. In: KruseGraumann/Hartmuth/Erdmann 1998: 9-33.
Headland, T.N. 1997. Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology. Current
Anthropology, 38 (4): 605-630.
Heydemann, B. 1997. Leistungen der Natur für die Gesellschaft. In:
Bundesmninisterium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit
(Hrsg.): Ökologie – Grundlage einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung für
Deutschland. Tagungsband zum Fachgespräch am 29.-30. April 1997,
Bonn: 21-28.
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Annex I:
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I.,
McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M.,
Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grübler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha,
N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore
III, B., O’Riordan, T., Svedin, U. (2001): Sustainability Science.
Science, 292: 641-642.
Kellert, S.R. 1996. The Value of Life. Biological Diversity and Human
Society. Island Press, Washington, D.C., Covelo, Cal.
Kruse-Graumann, L., Hartmuth, G., Erdmann, K.H. (Eds.) 1998. Goals,
Possibilities and Problems of Social Monitoring. Tagungsband zum
MAB Workshop, 13.-15. Juni 1996, PIK, Potsdam. MAB-Mitteilungen,
No. 42. German MAB National Committee, Bonn.
Lass, W., Reusswig, F. 1999. Verankerung des Nachhaltigkeitsleitbilds in
der Umweltkommunikation. Band 1: Systematische Auswertung.
UNESCO-Verbindungsstelle im Umweltbundesamt. Berlin.
Moldan, B., Billharz, S. (Eds.) 1997. Sustainability Indicators. Report of
the project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. Wiley,
Chichester.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. 2001. Re-Thinking Science –
Knowledge Production in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press,
Cambridge.
McNeely, J. 1997a. Biodiversity and Sustainable Use: Creating
Partnerships with the Private Sector, NGOs, and Local Communities
to Support Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Paper presented to IV Ajusco Forum Biodiversity, Globalization and
Sustainability in Latin America and the Caribbean: Who does nature
belong to? El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City, 19-21 November
1997.
McNeely, J. 1997b. How Protected Areas Can Respond to the Changing
Nature of Society. Paper presented to Protected Areas in the 21st
Century: From Islands to Networks. Albany, Western Australia, 24-28
November 1997.
NRC 1999. The National Research Council of the United States (Ed.).
Our Common Journey. Science for the Transition to Sustainability.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Reusswig, F. 1998. Social Monitoring of Global Change: The Syndrome
Approach. First Lessons from a New Transdisciplinary Research
Project. In: Kruse-Graumann/Hartmuth/Erdmann (Eds.) 1998: 79-90.
Rodenburg, E. 1995. Monitoring for Sustainability. In: Th.C. Trzyna
(Ed.): A Sustainable World. Defining and Measuring Sustainable
Development. Sacramento/Ca., London: 77-86.
Schellnhuber, H.-J. 2001. Die Koevolution von Natur, Gesellschaft und
Wissenschaft – Eine Dreiecksbeziehung wird kritisch. GAIA, 10 (4):
258-262.
Schellnhuber, H.-J., Wenzel, V. (Eds.) 1998. Earth System Analysis.
Integrating Science for Sustainability. Springer, Berlin.
van Helden, F. 2001. Through the Thicket. Disentangling the social
dynamics of an integrated conservation and development project on
mainland Papua New Guinea. Wageningen.
van Kooten, G.C., Bulte, E.H. 2000. The Economics of Nature. Managing
Biological Assets. Blackwell Publishers, Malden Ma./Oxford.
Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M. (1997):
Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystems. Science 277: 494-500.
WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale
Umweltveränderungen) (1999): Welt im Wandel – Erhaltung und
nachhaltige Nutzung der Biosphäre. Jahresgutachten 1999. Berlin etc.
(English Version: Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere)
Wilkie, D.S., Carpenter, J.F., Zhang, Q. 2001. The under-financing of
protected areas in the Congo Basin: so many parks and so little
willingness-to-pay. Biodiversity and Conservation. 10: 691-709.
Worster, D. 1994. Nature’s Economy. A History of Ecological Ideas.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Xue, D., Tisdell, C. (2001): Valuing ecological functions of biodiversity in
Changbaishan Biosphere Reserve in Northeast China. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 10: 467-481.
Annex I
Contribution of participants
(Abstracts)
Sandra Fowkes
Social monitoring of biosphere reserves
as a social learning process: a case study
monitoring the phoenix rising from the ashes
The case study refers to the short-term public private sector partnership known as the Santam/Cape Argus Ukuvuka Operation Firestop campaign. The stated aim of the initiative is to significantly reduce the risk of damage and danger
from uncontrolled fires in a specified part of the Cape Peninsula (Cape Town, South Africa), currently no biosphere reserve
and part of the Cape Floral Kingdom. The determining event
that resulted in the formation of the campaign was the fires
that raged through the Cape Peninsula in January 2000. Fire
is natural and an essential part of the ecosystem and vegetation type of the area. However, these fires were of a different
order of magnitude due to the huge increase in fuel load provided by the uncontrolled growth of invading alien plants
(particularly Acacia species from Australia). An important
focus of the campaign is therefore the removal of invading
alien plants particularly on the urban edge of the National
Park. This aim was combined with a second one: to improve
the social capacities of the local people affected by fires by creating employment and enhancing cooperation and social cohesion. Participation and empowerment especially of the urban
poor was an important part of the campaign, although local
fire authorities were incidentally quite skeptic about this issue.
The success of the campaign showed this to be based on
wrong assumptions or professional prejudice. A reduction of
fire damages of about 90% could be reached.
Part of the campaign was a clear and effective organization with strong participatory elements. Monitoring
turned out to be an important management and social learning tool. Key performance indicators have been developed
and applied. It is crucial to be aware of the fact that monitoring means different things for different groups (like staff,
management, public authorities etc.). For all groups and purposes, monitoring systems (including indicators) should be
measurable, consistent, replicable, trackable over time,
and have meaning (especially with regard to management
objectives).
Jochen Jesinghaus
The dashboard of sustainability:
a monitoring tool for sustainable development
Monitoring activities have to be seen in the context
of political decisions and related public communication. They
have to serve management and decision oriented purposes in
the policy cycle of mass media democracies. Indicators have
a clear policy bias and are politically relevant. A good example is the fact that the performance of the economy—and to
a great extent the success or failure of national governments—
is measured by few highly visible indicators (e.g., GDP, unemployment rate, inflation rate).
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
29
BRIM SERIES No. 1
In the case of sustainable development we still lack
such basic and relevant indicators. Problems of integration,
weighing, and interpretation arise. It thus seems appropriate
to develop a meta-tool that allows for a quick and easy to
understand integration and weighing of existing data. The
Dashboard of Sustainability has been designed to serve decision makers and stakeholders in order to measure the progress
of societies to sustainability. It allows for user defined combination and weighing of indicators. The instrument not only
enables us to overlook the complex field of sustainable development. It also reveals subjective differences in relevance setting and evaluation of progress. What might look like manipulation at first sight turns out to be a basis for mutual
exchange of underlying assumptions and values, thus fostering a rational debate about future priorities and the concrete
meaning of the sustainability goal shared so widely.
The Dashboard could be useful for biosphere reserves
for at least two reasons: (i) it is a technical tool that might
help to integrate and visualize monitored data from different
domains; (ii) it is a communicative tool that fosters discussions about the values and priorities of different users in a
biosphere reserve.
Lenelies Kruse-Graumann
Biosphere reserves as models
of sustainable development?
The paper begins with a brief history of the UNESCO
MAB programme with special attention to the idea of sustainable development. The Seville Strategy of 1995 is characterized as a qualitative leap in the process of integrating human
actors and systems into conservation. The reality of the biosphere reserves looks somewhat different. It thus is needed to
translate and make operational the sustainability-Leitbild both
in a conceptual and, even more important, in a practical and
managerial manner.
Social monitoring is a complex and multi-dimensional endeavor, asking for the integration of a multitude of
levels, perspectives and approaches. It is important to make
natural scientists and the reserve management aware of the
specific problems and procedures of social science based monitoring. In order to develop a common framework for socioeconomic monitoring, a stepwise process is appropriate, looking carefully at the relevant indicators, the availability and
quality of data, the methods for data gathering and indicator
interpretation, and, last but not least, the integration of stakeholders.
In the final section a pragmatic and step-by-step
process of implementing socio-economic monitoring for biosphere reserves is proposed, including the upgrading and
expansion of existing monitoring activities. It will be crucial
to find the acceptance of biosphere reserves management and
staff. A feasible way of starting could be the design of one up
to three pilot projects to be carried out in selected biosphere
reserves that are interested and well equipped to start with
socio-economic monitoring. It will be crucial to create an
open learning process for BRIM and to include social science
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
30
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
expertise in order to derive truly integrated monitoring procedures for biosphere reserves.
Robert G. Lee
Institutional challenges to integrating
socio-economic and biological monitoring
The paper starts from a sociological analysis of interand transdisciplinary cooperation that is necessary in order to
develop and implement an integrated socio-economic and biological monitoring process. It is crucial to develop a shared
scientific language and understanding of the underlying problems, free from mystified notions of “ecosystems,” “communities,” and “economies.” Sociologists can assist in identifying how such reifications fragment discourse, isolate
institutions, promote conflict, and impede meaningful interdisciplinary cooperation.
The starting point for integrated monitoring in biosphere reserves should be the Seville Strategy, stating that BR
should be seen as model regions for sustainable development,
explicitly taking humans—their interests, views, and activities—into account. Nevertheless, integrated monitoring, especially the socio-economic part of it, has up to now not evolved
in the adequate manner. Five of the most important barriers
to adoption of socio-economic monitoring are: (1) insufficient funds, (2) interagency rivalries, (3) insufficient political
will, (4) treatment of social and economic concerns as residual values, and (5) cultural and institutional conflict. These
barriers are illustrated by the recent fate of the U.S. MAB Program, now reduced both in institutional status and in public
acceptance. The cultural conflict between “ecosystems” versus “communities” or “the economy” demands for real scientific demystification of basic concepts.
Resource utilization patterns, a core issue to be
observed, can be efficiently monitored by developing a better
understanding of the relationship of land use and land cover.
An often under-looked social indicator is the extent of operational ecological knowledge held by local or indigenous
resource users or managers. Such knowledge can be considered proto-scientific ecological knowledge. Management of
biosphere reserves could benefit from adoption of strategies
for conserving ecological knowledge, including protecting
local culture, facilitating community-based learning and
research, and adoption of a scale of social organization and
administration suited to ecological learning and local adaptation. Development of successful monitoring protocols will
require several trials in diverse social, economic and ecological circumstances. Several case studies involving interdisciplinary monitoring teams promises to be the best approach
for drafting some model protocols.
Bedich Moldan
Socio-economic monitoring of biosphere
reserves: lessons from sustainability indicators
Good indicators are important prerequisites for sustainable development. Many international and national institutions are developing adequate indicators. The paper mentions three leading intergovernmental organizations: (i) United
BRIM SERIES No. 1
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN CSD),
(ii) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), (iii) European Union (EU). The work of the
UN CSD is presented in some detail and regarded as important for UNESCO MAB (e.g. because of its good documentation and national test process).
Nine guiding principles for good indicator systems
in biosphere reserves monitoring can be derived from the
three monitoring initiatives sketched: (1) indicators should be
tailored for BRs, (2) they should have an obvious link to sustainable development, (3) they must be based on sound science, (4) they must be based on reliable data, (5) indicators
must be cost-effective, (6) they must be credible, authoritative and legitimate, (7) they must be easily understandable and
limited in number, (8) they must have a unified methodology,
and (9) indicators must be policy relevant.
The paper then proposes a set of indicators for biosphere reserves that try to fulfil these criteria. Five domains of
indicators are mentioned: (1) basic indicators on people and
their status, (2) indicators on ecosystem services, (3) indicators on the participation of local communities, (4) indicators
on the socio-economic dynamism of a region, (5) indicators
on the attitudes of local residents, and (6) indicators on future
developments. The contribution stresses the necessity to monitor biosphere reserves in their specific local and national contexts.
Hoang Tri Nguyen
A socio-economic study of the protection
and management of rehabilitated mangroves
in Thai Binh and Nam Dinh provinces,
Red River Delta, Vietnam
Vietnam experiences rapid growth processes both in
terms of GDP development and of population growth. Still,
poverty is a reality for many in the country. As great parts of
the society have seen a substantial increase of their household
income and general well-being, the poor, orienting themselves
towards the living standards of higher income strata, tend to
overuse the natural resource basis they rely on (mostly to a
much higher degree than more ‘modernized’ sectors of society). This has to be seen in the context of an expanding highprofit and export-oriented aquaculture industry.
The study focuses on different household groups in
two provinces in the Red River delta of Vietnam, both of
which are rehabilitated mangrove areas. The households were
surveyed with regard to their income, their expenditures, their
diet, and their attitudes towards natural resources protection
and related agencies. The project results were a basis for discussions with local stakeholders and decision makers. The
project results underline the necessity of integrating socio-economic aspects—especially equity aspects—both in conservation and in monitoring processes.
Gerhard Petschel-Held
Requirements for socio-economic monitoring:
the perspective of the Millennium Assessment
and integrated assessments in general
The paper starts with the difference between monitoring and assessment, arguing that for biosphere reserves
under the auspices of the Seville Strategy an integrated assessment (including management targets and stakeholder involvement) seems more appropriate than pure monitoring. Another
argument in favour of assessments is the fact that biosphere
reserves have to be seen in their local and global contexts,
given both natural and socio-economic linkages to the ‘rest of
the world’ at different scales.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is discussed as an example for biosphere reserves. The key concept
of the MA, linking ecosystems and people, is the concept of
ecosystem goods and services. One of the main purposes of
the MA is to assess the future ability of the world’s ecosystems
to meet human needs for goods and services. This includes,
among other things, (i) a multi-level approach, (ii) a clear relation to international conventions addressing biodiversity issues
(like Ramsar, CBD), and (iii) a strong co-operation with users
and managers of the biosphere. A crucial scientific issue of the
MA is the understanding of the primary and proximate drivers of the use (and overuse) of ecosystem goods and services.
Here again an integration of actors and processes at different
scales is necessary.
A possible concept for this integration is introduced
in the second part of the paper: the so-called Syndrome
approach, developed by the German Advisory Council on
Global Change (WBGU) and currently elaborated at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Syndromes
are defined as hazardous functional patterns, they are designed
as a pattern detection tool for non-sustainable developments
at the human-nature interface. Although globally oriented
from the outset, syndromes have a functionally oriented focus
so that different geographical levels are observed. The methodological features (Fuzzy Logic, Qualitative Differential Equations) of the approach are well suited for the integration of
qualitative (case study based) and quantitative (e.g. model
oriented) knowledge. The contribution ends with suggestions
for integrated monitoring in biosphere reserves: (i) let monitoring and assessment activities profit from each other, (ii)
develop shared conceptual models of interactions between the
social and the natural sphere, and (iii) draw on hinges between
the social and the natural sphere, e.g. the concept of ecosystem goods and services.
Robert Prescott-Allen
The well-being of nations and the sustainability
of biosphere reserves: an integrated approach
to monitoring and assessment
The paper draws some lessons from the well-being
assessment undertaken by the author in his recently published book on the Well-Being of Nations, an assessment of the
sustainability of 180 countries, using a combined and complex indicator system both for human and for ecosystem well-
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
31
BRIM SERIES No. 1
being. Sustainability is understood as the combination of both,
as humans can only sustain a good life in a healthy ecosystem. The paper goes into the problematique of measurement
and indicators and is much in favor of a transparent and target-oriented system of indices that address scientifically sound
and relevant domains of the social and environmental sphere.
The main part of the paper is dedicated to the illustrative combination of the domain-specific indicators into a
Human Well-being Index (HWI, 36 indicators), an Ecosystem
Well-being Index (EWI, 51), a combined Well-being Index
(WI), and a Well-being/Stress Index (the ratio of human wellbeing to ecosystem stress, WSI). Together, these four indices
provide a measurement of sustainable development. Indices
help to overcome incomparability problems that usually go
along with indicator building. Comparability was assured by
using scales for performance scores according to the Barometer of Sustainability.
In its final part the paper addresses the issue of measuring the well-being of biosphere reserves. The methodology
used in the international well-being assessment of nations
could well be adapted to the specific features and problems
of biosphere reserves, especially when they are regarded as
both nature conservation sites and as laboratories for sustainable development, as the Seville Strategy clearly states.
The required adaptation should be done in close co-operation
with stakeholders and also focus the relations between biosphere reserves and their (human and natural) environment.
Susanne Stoll-Kleemann
Participatory process monitoring
in biosphere beserves: needs, difficulties
and opportunities
The paper argues in favor of a participatory approach
to monitoring in biosphere reserves, deriving this impetus
from (i) democratic rules, (ii) management legitimacy issues,
(iii) the necessities of a shared knowledge and understanding
of all participants in the sustainable management of biosphere
reserves in a wider sense. Participatory approaches to ecosystem and/or conservation site management arise not only from
some practical problems but are deeply rooted in the professional rules and the affiliated knowledge systems of most conservationists. This system of knowledge and behavior is
termed according to Pretty and Chambers the “old professional
paradigm”. It is confronted with a “new professional paradigm” that stresses holistic and post-positivistic science, an
open management style, a participatory approach and the
acceptance of multiple world-views. Examples from Germany
and other nature conservation sites around the world are given
as illustrative.
The final part of the paper is dedicated to the application of the spirit of the “new professional paradigm” to
social monitoring in biosphere reserves. An orientation
towards the needs and perspectives of social actors inside and
outside the reserve, the reflection and understanding of possible resistance against conservation, and a general sensitivity
to social processes seems appropriate to realize the new paradigm.
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
32
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
Flip van Helden
Integrating biological and social indicators
for protected area siting:
the case of Papua New Guinea
The paper discusses the use of sociological and biological indicators for protected area establishment and management in the context of Papua New Guinea. It starts by
shortly discussing the growing importance of social and economic indicators for protected area establishment in general.
The second part presents the case of Papua New
Guinea, which due to its unique system of customary land
tenure puts this country in the vanguard of developing community-based, participatory and incentive-driven conservation initiatives. As such it provides a learning experience from
which community-based conservation initiatives in other
countries may benefit. The specific case of the Bismarck-Ramu
integrated conservation and development project is discussed
in more detail in order to give an idea of the various ways in
which biological and social indicators are combined in the
establishment of a protected area on the northern escarpment
of the mainland of Papua New Guinea. A social feasibility
study was undertaken in the course of the project. The monitoring process was part of the establishment of protected
areas in a clearly participatory manner, combining biological,
social and economic indicators. These indicators had to make
sense for local people especially with regard to competing
land and resource use options and interests.
The lines of argument together illustrate the manner
in which conservation interventions in developing countries
are changing from the traditional, rather technocratic and topdown interventions driven by ecologically-trained conservation managers into a much more open-ended flexible and
highly political process based on the realisation that there is
a trade-off between ecological considerations on the one hand
and economic and social considerations on the other. Positions based on ecological purism are unlikely to succeed, as
local people are able to exert considerable influence over the
management of natural resources. This shift in conservation
practice has important consequences for the composition of
project teams as well as for the design of assessment and monitoring systems. It may even be useful for existing biosphere
reserves and their monitoring, especially (but not exclusively)
in developing countries.
Annex II
Annex II:
BRIM SERIES No. 1
List of participants
Salvatore Arico
Programme Specialist, Biodiversity,
Man and Biosphere Programme
Division of Ecological Sciences
UNESCO
1, Rue Miollis
75732 Paris Cedex 15
France
Tel.: 33-1-45684090
Fax: 33-1-45685804
E-mail: [email protected]
James Handawela
ETC Lanka Private Limited
12, Tickel Road
Colombo 8
Sri Lanka
Tel.: 94-1-698451
Fax.: 94-1-683039
E-mail: [email protected]
Flip van Helden
Wageningen Agricultural University
Wageningen
The Netherlands
Tel.: 31-3-17489111l
E-mail:
[email protected]
Sandra Fowkes
Campaign Manager
Santam/Cape Argus Ukuvuka:Operation Firestop
Goldfields Education Centre
Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens
Cape Town
South Africa
Tel: 27-21-7627474
Fax: 27-21-7628337
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.ukuvuka.org.za
Jochen Jesinghaus
European Commission
JRC - Joint Research Centre
Institute for Systems,
Informatics and Safety (ISIS/MIA)
TP 361
I-21020 Ispra (VA)
Italy
Tel.: 39-0332-785287
Fax: 39-0332-785733
E-mail: [email protected]
Lenelis Kruse-Graumann
FernUniversität Hagen
Institute of Psychology
P.O. Box 940
D-58084 Hagen
Germany
Tel: 49-2331-9872775
Fax: 49-2331-9872709
E-mail: Lenelis.Kruse@
FernUni-Hagen.de
Wiebke Lass
Institute for Socio-economic
Research (Gesellschaft für sozioökonomische Forschung, GSF)
Meistersingerstr. 15
14471 Potsdam
Germany
Tel: 49-331-900457
Fax: 49-331-9512016
E-mail: [email protected]
Robert G. Lee
Professor,
Sociology of Natural Resources
College of Forest Resources
University of Washington
Box 352100
Seattle, Washington 98195
USA
Tel.: 1-206-6850879
Fax: 1-206-6853091
E-mail: [email protected]
Bedrich Moldan
Director, Charles University Environment Center
U Krize 8
158 00 Prague 5
Czech Republic
Tel.: 420-2-51080202
Fax: 420-2-51620441
E-mail: bedrich.moldan@
czp.cuni.cz.
Jürgen Nauber
EuroMAB,
German MAB National Committee
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)
Head of Division
International Affairs and Cooperation/MAB
Konstantinstr. 110
D-53179 Bonn
Germany
Tel.: 49-228-8491239
Fax: 49-228-8491245
E-mail: [email protected]
Hoang Tri Nguyen
SeaBRnet,
Permanent Secretary
of MAB-Vietnam
7 Ngo 115
Nguyen Khuyen
Hanoi
Vietnam
Tel: 84-4-7335625/7335624
Fax: 84-4-7335624
E-mail: [email protected]
Gerhard Petschel-Held
Head “Integrated Systems”
Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research (PIK)
Postbox 601203
D-14412 Potsdam
Germany
Tel.: 49-331-2882513
Fax: -49-331-2882648
E-mail: Gerhard.Petschel@
pik-potsdam.de
Robert Prescott-Allen
Padata
627 Aquarius Road
Victoria, British Columbia
V9C 4G5
Canada
Tel: 1-250-4741904
Fax: 1-250-474-6976
E-mail: [email protected]
Fritz Reusswig
Director Sociology
Institute for Socio-economic
Research (Gesellschaft für sozioökonomische Forschung, GSF)
Meistersingerstr. 15
14471 Potsdam
Germany
Tel: 49-331-900457
Fax: 49-331-9512016
E-mail: [email protected]
Reuben A. Sessa
GTOS Programme Assistant
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Roma
Italy
Tel.: 39-06-5706519
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.fao.org/gtos/
resmeettech.html
Susanne Stoll-Kleemann
Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research (PIK)
Department “Global Change
& Social Systems”
P.O. Box 601203
D-14412 Potsdam
Germany
Tel.: 49-331-2882548
Fax: 49-331-2882620
E-mail: Susanne.Stoll@
pik-potsdam.de
Jeff Tschirley
GTOS Programme Director
FAO
Via delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Roma
Italy
Tel: 39-06-57053450
Fax: 39-06-5705 3369
E-mail: [email protected]
Katarina Vestin
Assistant Programme Specialist
Biodiversity, Man and Biosphere
Programme
Division of Ecological Sciences
UNESCO
1, Rue Miollis
75732 Paris Cedex 15
France
Tel.: 33-1-45684058
Fax: 33-1-45685804
E-mail: [email protected]
SOCIAL MONITORING
Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves
REPORT on an INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP – Rome, 2-3 September 2001
33